God's Devil

[Luke2427]

Now based upon previous experience I expect that at this point you will try to isolate me from other Calvinists saying that the above post does not represent mainstream Calvinism.

This you will do in an effort to marginalize my arguments by making me appear to be in some minority fringe of Calvinism.

But the fact of the matter is that the idea that EVERYTHING THAT EVER COMES TO PASS HAS BEEN DECREED BY GOD and that GOD HIMSELF BRINGS IT TO PASS in a physical manner because nothing moves apart from God's power and yet not in a moral manner because all God must do is remove his moral goodness for evil to ensue is mainline historic Calvinism. Of course that is because it is also fully and clearly biblical.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 7, defines the decree of God: “The decrees of God are, His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own glory, He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.”



The Westminster Confession of Faith (ch. 3:1) explains a bit further about God’s decree saying:

God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

And so there it is.

Now you will say, "But is says, 'God is not the author of sin!!!" To which I will respond- RIGHT.

We don't know HOW he does this so that he is not the author of sin but we know that he DOES IT.

Then there will be some fruitless discussion as I try to point out to you that Calvin and the Reformed Faith has historically believed that there is a diffence between "remote" or "ultimate" cause and "proximate" or immediate cause.

And then I will remind you that we believe that evil is the absence of goodness so if God wills that evil be in some scenario he can make sure that it comes to pass by simply removing his goodness from that situation. But even so God is bringing it to pass BY removing himself from it. That means he is not MORALLY active in the situation. However, what he does not do is remove his power- physical energy. Nothing can move unless God empowers it to move. So the Roman Soldiers cannot nail the hands of Jesus to the cross unless God empowers their arms to lift and drop the hammer, etc...

God must only remove himself as a moral influence from the heart of the Roman Soldier and evil will inexorably ensue- just as darkness enters immediately upon the exodus of light.

And that is the sum of it.

And you will then respond by accusing me of saying things I never said in this manner:

"But you said, 'God is DOING the evil'. You throw words like tomatoes!!"

And then I will get very frustrated and retort harshly, "Either you have Alzheimers or you are just dishonest because I have never said that nor anything like it. I said that evil is the absence of good, and that God cannot do evil because everything he does is good; and it is good BECAUSE he does it."

And then I will challenge you to provide the quote where I said, "God does the evil".

And then you will disappear, or miraculously this thread will be closed down so that you will not have to. Likely you will get the last word and it will not provide said quotes and then the thread will be no more and I won't get respond.

Then in a month we will go through this very same song and dance again.

Sound about right?

 

[Skandelon]

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.

I was more referring to your interpretation of the word "world," but yes, with all the discussions I could certainly forget the differing views of the various Calvinistic camps. For example, Aaron and Fredrick on the other thread are arguing that God's desires never go unfulfilled, thus they interpret 2 Peter 3:9 to mean God desires all "the elect" to come to repentance. I guess you disagree with them on that point?

If I take the time to dredge up those posts here 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?

Luke, you moved the goal posts so many times in our discussion I doubt you could dredge up all the utlimatems you gave me before supplying a working definition of "decree/ordain." First you wanted me to answer these questions:

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

Did Satan afflict Job?
Did God afflict Job?

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

Which I did in my first reply. I answered that question in several ways. I told you I agreed with Edwards description of how "God permits and doesn't hinder" in all these examples of evil. And because I didn't go through and answer each one individually you kept harping on it as if I hadn't answered. Another poster provided a line by line response and I also agreed with her answer, yet still you continued to harp on me as if I hadn't answered and then finally I went line by line through all of them in order to satisfy your insatiable demand. After going line by line you then claimed you already gave definitions by quoting Confessional statements. Then you told me if I explained the difference in soldiers killing people and murdering a neighbor that you would give me a definition of ordain.

Finally you define decree as :

"The decree of God is His eternal purpose, according to His will, whereby He has foreordained whatever comes to pass."

And I explained: "You have just replaced the word "decree" with the word "foreordained" so could you define "foreordain" now? Like I told you when I first started this quest, it doesn't help just switching between a half dozen ambiguous and undefined terms such as "determined, predetermined, caused, foreordained, ordained, decreed, predestined, etc etc. You need to explain what it is to decree something. Like I asked before, What does it mean to say God decreed the the fall of man?

I think it means, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency." What do you think about that?

Further, since you admitted there is a permissive decree, can you just list one thing that might fall under God permissive decree and expound on that a bit?"

I don't believe you ever responded to this post.

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.

Well that SOMETHING was Edwards view of the Origin of Evil, the topic of our discussion. You have a tendency to dismiss points that we are debating when you are proven wrong about them as "well its ONLY that ONE thing!" As if we should all just think, "Oh, its just that one thing. The very point up for debate, but its just ONE, so it really doesn't matter. Now, if it were many things it would matter, but since its only ONE everyone should just ignore it and move on." Stop dismissing points ONE at a time as being insignificant simply because of their only being ONE. Ok?

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

Not if its the "something" you disagree on.

What Edwards DOES believe is that God willed that evil be and brought it to pass by his own divine decree

Yeah, but he separates the permissive decree from the active ones where as you just think God permits what he actively decrees. At least that is what I have deduced you believe based upon your vague posts and lack of definitions.

Yes what God brings to pass he permits.

And there is the problem, you think God "brings to pass" evil in the same "active" way he "brings to pass" the incarnation. You have made no distinction between the two.

 

[Skandelon]

Now based upon previous experience I expect that at this point you will try to isolate me from other Calvinists saying that the above post does not represent mainstream Calvinism.

This you will do in an effort to marginalize my arguments by making me appear to be in some minority fringe of Calvinism.

But the fact of the matter is that the idea that EVERYTHING THAT EVER COMES TO PASS HAS BEEN DECREED BY GOD and that GOD HIMSELF BRINGS IT TO PASS

The reason Edwards and the confessional statement and fredrick and aangel are at odds with you is because you (at times) have God DOING the MEANS. As you said, "GOD is doing the deed," but that is just the opposite point of the confessions and Edwards. They are saying Men do the DEEDS, they are the means that God uses to accomplish his motive. God permits the evil deed in order to accomplish the pure motive. He doesnt do the deed himself (active agency) with a good motive making it a good deed. The deed of killing jesus was horrific and God didn't do it, men did it. He allowed it, decreed it (permissively), for good reason. See the difference?

And then I will challenge you to provide the quote where I said, "God does the evil".

You have said,

"God decreed evil" -Luke
"God does the deed." -Luke
"God willed the most horrible sin of all time"- Luke
"God willed for evil" -Luke
"The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE." -Luke
"God does not just allow these things" -Luke

On the other hand, Edwards says, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

I'll let the readers following along judge for themselves if you and Edwards are on the same page.

 

[Luke2427]

The reason Edwards and the confessional statement and fredrick and aangel are at odds with you is because you (at times) have God DOING the MEANS. As you said, "GOD is doing the deed," but that is just the opposite point of the confessions and Edwards.

No it is not. Nothing can be done unless God wills it and empowers it. It is that simple. Edwards agrees as does the Confession.

They are saying Men do the DEEDS, they are the means that God uses to accomplish his motive. God permits the evil deed in order to accomplish the pure motive. He doesnt do the deed himself (active agency) with a good motive making it a good deed. The deed of killing jesus was horrific and God didn't do it, men did it. He allowed it, decreed it (permissively), for good reason. See the difference?

Yes God does. God crucified Christ. God afflicted Job. Men and Satan were tools in the hands of God to accomplish his purposes.

You have said,

"God decreed evil" -Luke
"God does the deed." -Luke
"God willed the most horrible sin of all time"- Luke
"God willed for evil" -Luke
"The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE." -Luke
"God does not just allow these things" -Luke

DING, DING, DING, DING DING!

I did say all of those things which stands in contradistinction from your accusations.

On the other hand, Edwards says, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

Because God cannot sin. I just explained this and you TOTALLY ignored it. I have explained it numerous times and you choose to ignore it.

Evil is the absence of good... You know what. Just go back and reread all I said on this in my previous two posts.

And then address THAT.

Edwards understands that God does not do evil as I have been affirming for months.

But he will that it take place, he empowers the action for nothing can move without God's power (for example the lifting of the hammer to nail Christ to the cross), etc, etc, etc...

What you want to do is deny that God is bringing his will to pass in every event that ever takes place.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Just where in Calvin's writings does he state that God is the author of sin? Please show me this!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course, I am trying to follow this but I dont have the training so forgive me if Im being academic ..... but Luke, here is what I think I hear you saying....

"God, and not man, is the real author or cause of sin. Your claiming "the absolute predestination of all things" if I have it right, IE... "God predestines sin in the same way He does holiness." "Sin is a creature of God, and is a very good thing in its place,"

Is this what your are saying Luke.....do I understand you correctly?

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, just answer this question. Is there any thing which falls under God's permissive decree that doesn't fall under His active decree. Or, as Edwards puts it, any thing not under his 'positive agency'?

I'm honestly just trying to understand your view, because everything you say appears to be hard determinism, not compatibilism as you claimed to believe. That's fine if that is your view, but you seem on the one hand to defend exhaustive determinism and on the other hand claim to be a compatiblist. Even other Cals here seem to be confused by your wording, so its not just me. Im honestly just trying to find out what view you are attempting to defend.

 

[Skandelon]

Also, you have said:

'The crucifixion is the worse evil ever committed' and 'God crucified Christ,' and you have said 'God does the deed.' But then you get on to me for interpreting that to mean 'God does the evil deed, but its not evil because his motive is pure.'

When i try to explain that the confessions and other Cals are careful to explain that God DOESNT do the deed, his creatures do, and thus God is accomplishing his purposes through 2nd causes etc you still insist 'God killed Christ' as if all those explanations about 2nd causes aren't necessary. You are very careless with your terms, which is why I praised the article you posted. They were very careful to explain what they meant by their use of certain terms, which is something you need to do.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Also, you have said:

'The crucifixion is the worse evil ever committed' and 'God crucified Christ,' and you have said 'God does the deed.' But then you get on to me for interpreting that to mean 'God does the evil deed, but its not evil because his motive is pure.'

When i try to explain that the confessions and other Cals are careful to explain that God DOESNT do the deed, his creatures do, and thus God is accomplishing his purposes through 2nd causes etc you still insist 'God killed Christ' as if all those explanations about 2nd causes aren't necessary. You are very careless with your terms, which is why I praised the article you posted. They were very careful to explain what they meant by their use of certain terms, which is something you need to do.

There has got to be more to this than meets the eye..... How would it be justifiable to kill Christ & then blame and punish man for that action? Then God would move from being a Just God to an operator ....a manipulator of men. I hope he is NOT claiming that!

 

[Skandelon]

There has got to be more to this than meets the eye..... How would it be justifiable to kill Christ & then blame and punish man for that action? Then God would move from being a Just God to an operator ....a manipulator of men. I hope he is NOT claiming that!

Those are all actual quotes from Luke, but I'll let him explain himself.

Personally, I believe that God did blind or hardened the Jews from seeing the clear truth of Christ so that they wouldn't repent prior to crucifying him. But, I believe they freely rebelled and God merely kept them in darkness temporarily so as to ensure the crucifixion. I don't believe God needed to violate man's will, or manipulate them. He simply hid the truth from them so they would do what came natural. But THEY killed Christ, according to God's redemptive purpose and the prophecy, but to say God killed Christ is stepping over the line, IMO.

 

[Luke2427]

Just where in Calvin's writings does he state that God is the author of sin? Please show me this!

No one believes that God is the author of sin. This is a "misunderstanding" on the part of Skandelon.

What is being parried about is the issue of causality.

God was NOT the proximate cause of evil according to Calvin. But he was the remote or ultimate cause.

It was the teaching of Augustine that said that evil is nothing just as darkness is nothing.

Darkness is just the absence of light and evil is the absence of good.

All God must do to bring evil to pass is withdraw himself from a place or situation or person.

In THAT sense God caused evil but in a REMOTE way- not by actively in MORAL fashion participating but in a passive way by simply withdrawing himself from something.

Yet it is important to me that we consider that, though God is absent in a moral fashion, the physical POWER to perform any deed is God's power because ALL power is God's power.

God withdrew himself from the hearts of Herod and Pilate as it were and the evil that drove them to crucify Christ infallibly ensued.
But the POWER to crucify him- physically (and for that matter authoritatively) was God's.

This is why I have been arguing for months that God CANNOT do evil but at the same time nothing is done apart from God's plan and power and permission.

This is partly why the reformed community has spoken of remote and proximate causes when it comes to God and the existence of evil.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, just answer this question. Is there any thing which falls under God's permissive decree that doesn't fall under His active decree. Or, as Edwards puts it, any thing not under his 'positive agency'?

Yes.

In a moral fashion God is passive when it comes to evil. But in THIS sense: he withdraws himself, his goodness, his moral influence which restrains evil, SO THAT evil CAN come to pass.

But in a physical and authoritative fashion God is still active.

No deed can be done without energy. All energy or power is God's power.

So physically God is bringing to pass everything that ever comes to pass.

Morally he is removing himself from situations so that evil will exist which he uses for his own holy purposes. It is important to note that those purposes are ULTIMATE. They are eternal. The temporary evil that must be endured is necessary that the ultimate purposes will be enjoyed forever.

I'm honestly just trying to understand your view, because everything you say appears to be hard determinism, not compatibilism as you claimed to believe. That's fine if that is your view, but you seem on the one hand to defend exhaustive determinism and on the other hand claim to be a compatiblist. Even other Cals here seem to be confused by your wording, so its not just me. Im honestly just trying to find out what view you are attempting to defend.

I could not be clearer than I am here and over the past several posts.

I am a compatablist because I believe that God is exhaustively Sovereign and is bringing to pass his will in every single event that ever occurs and at the same time mysteriously to us man is doing what he wishes and fully responsible.

Bruce Ware is a champion of compatablism and he has stated this issue just like I am stating it.[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Debate-Predestination-Free-Will/dp/B00135OVIS]Amazon.com:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No one believes that God is the author of sin. This is a "misunderstanding" on the part of Skandelon.

What is being parried about is the issue of causality.

God was NOT the proximate cause of evil according to Calvin. But he was the remote or ultimate cause.

It was the teaching of Augustine that said that evil is nothing just as darkness is nothing.

Darkness is just the absence of light and evil is the absence of good.

All God must do to bring evil to pass is withdraw himself from a place or situation or person.

In THAT sense God caused evil but in a REMOTE way- not by actively in MORAL fashion participating but in a passive way by simply withdrawing himself from something.

Yet it is important to me that we consider that, though God is absent in a moral fashion, the physical POWER to perform any deed is God's power because ALL power is God's power.

God withdrew himself from the hearts of Herod and Pilate as it were and the evil that drove them to crucify Christ infallibly ensued.
But the POWER to crucify him- physically (and for that matter authoritatively) was God's.

This is why I have been arguing for months that God CANNOT do evil but at the same time nothing is done apart from God's plan and power and permission.

This is partly why the reformed community has spoken of remote and proximate causes when it comes to God and the existence of evil.

Yes....however God did not kill Jesus physically.....that would have been a sinful action & that deed (which was sinful) was applied by man. My consern is that God cannot be sinful (it is counter to His very nature) but if your adding that by removing himself He in fact allowed sin by His absence, then I understand that....that part of the equation was not being stressed (at least to me).

Had you blatantly indicated that God sinned by killing Christ, then that would have been blasphemy. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Luke2427]

Yes....however God did not kill Jesus physically.....that would have been a sinful action & that deed (which was sinful) was applied by man. My consern is that God cannot be sinful (it is counter to His very nature) but if your adding that by removing himself He in fact allowed sin by His absence, then I understand that....that part of the equation was not being stressed (at least to me).

Had you blatantly indicated that God sinned by killing Christ, then that would have been blasphemy. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, I think we are about on the same page.

I would only offer this addendum: The power to lift and drop the hammer has as it's source the same as all other power that has ever or will ever exist- God.

If God is ALL POWERFUL then there is no power that is NOT God's.

God powered the muscles that raised the hammer that drove the nails into the hands of the Son of God.

Isaiah said it right in Is. 53- "It pleased the Lord to bruise him". The Lord bruised him.

Luke said it right: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. (Acts 4:27-28)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is the missing element in Skans scenerio......the POWER to make it happen (or maybe not, he indicated Gods permissive will). I guess that permissive will is another way of saying Power. But it is not a thorough manipulation! Man has to want to do the deed, commit the sin. Had Judas, or Pilate or the Roman Centurion in charge of the execution said "No" this action will not happen on my watch, then the execution of Jesus perhaps would not have happened. Of course you will say these folks were not saved, God turned his face/goodness away from them & thus truly mandated it to happen.....but it could have been reworked had MAN REFUSED to play along.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, wait a minute...... Read this:

3rd Chapter 1689 Confessions of Faith (Baptist)

"Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins"

could fellowship be construed as giving a sinner any power to commit sin? If that's true then God completely is NOT involved with any act of sinning & in any way shape or form. Therefore the Roman Guards would not have been able to use Gods power to physically crucify Christ!

Then where would the power come from you may ask....I don't know, perhaps from the devil since it was an evil act. Perhaps man in his evil & sinful state has his own power to perpetuate evil. That I don't know.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, wait a minute...... Read this:

3rd Chapter 1689 Confessions of Faith (Baptist)

"Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins"

could fellowship be construed as giving a sinner any power to commit sin? If that's true then God completely is NOT involved with any act of sinning & in any way shape or form. Therefore the Roman Guards would not have been able to use Gods power to physically crucify Christ!

Then where would the power come from you may ask....I don't know, perhaps from the devil since it was an evil act. Perhaps man in his evil & sinful state has his own power to perpetuate evil. That I don't know.

So Luke....I would need to have clarification of the afore mentioned concerns before I could accept your belief that God goes to those levels to control people.

 

[JesusFan]

So Luke....I would need to have clarification of the afore mentioned concerns before I could accept your belief that God goes to those levels to control people.

Even more basic a question...

CAN God actually grant free will to created beings, and still retain absolute soverignity?

Did satan and the fallen angels have such?
Did Adam And Eve?

Either they had free will to turn against God, or God 'forced' them to do such, as Evil did not even exist yet, not in their very natures?

Think that in both sisuations the Lord ctreated them with "potential" to actual have "free will" choose good or evil...

Question that seperates us will be did God cause them to act, or permit their acts?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Even more basic a question...

CAN God actually grant free will to created beings, and still retain absolute soverignity?

Did satan and the fallen angels have such?
Did Adam And Eve?

Either they had free will to turn against God, or God 'forced' them to do such, as Evil did not even exist yet, not in their very natures?

Think that in both sisuations the Lord ctreated them with "potential" to actual have "free will" choose good or evil...

Question that seperates us will be did God cause them to act, or permit their acts?

I like the 1st question.....allot! Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

Yes.

In a moral fashion God is passive when it comes to evil. But in THIS sense: he withdraws himself, his goodness, his moral influence which restrains evil, SO THAT evil CAN come to pass.

Ok, but what causes it TO come to pass? His simply removing himself doesn't explain what caused it. The intent to do evil had to have an origin and this is where I believe your explanation is somewhat lacking...

Bruce Ware is a champion of compatablism and he has stated this issue just like I am stating it....

Really? I thought Dr. Ware was an infralapsarian, 4 point Calvinist that supported a concept of Monlina's view of "middle knowledge." You've never struck me as one who might support that more philosophical middle ground between Arm and Cals? Have I just grossly misunderstood you or do you disagree with Ware on most of these elements of teaching?