Good versus Evil

[Skandelon]

So then the answer is "Yes" you do want to go through all of that again.

Suits me.

God cannot do evil but God can ordain that evil come to pass.

Evil is the privation of good just as cold and dark are the privation of warmth and light.

Warmth does not CREATE or DO cold. When removes itself from a place the RESULT is cold.

With all due respect, I'm not seeing the answer to my question. What is the difference in God doing any given act for his glory and His ordaining any given act for his glory?

You've already established that his motive is what determines whether it is good or evil thus what is the point in making this distinction between 'doing' and 'ordaining' the given act? And further what specifically is that distinction? Can you give an example of God doing a given act for his glory and contrast it with his merely ordaining a given act for his glory?

 

[preacher4truth]

Well here is a problem of those in the arm/anti-cal camp. When they speak of God getting glory in allowing and punishing evil, they say it as if God is getting His kicks out of something.

We've seen it time and again here on BB and we see it in churches as well. That is the wrong view. They feel they need to rush in and 'protect' God.

God getting glory out of some evil circumstance wherein He is seen as Sovereign, and demonstrating His wrath against evil, that He has in fact allowed, is that His Divine attributes are shown, and in this case it is His justice and wrath and as a warning to all of mankind.

The same is seen in the lost world when they rebuke God for 'being glorified in evil' when what He is showing is His attributes of glory, righteousness, wrath, holiness and justice, all the while showing mercy to who He wills to show mercy (Romans 9/Titus 3:5 &c) and hardening of others. In other words He is ultimately Supreme in His being, doing as He wills to do.

Nevertheless some seem upset about God being glorified in the things concerning the demise of the wicked.

 

[Iconoclast]

It's a question about Luke's view, not an assertion of my belief. We are in agreement that such a belief is in error but given Luke's previous comments on this subject, I believe the question is justified...

Which post did LK24 post where he claimed God does this evil that you write about? I must have missed that post????

maybe QF could assist you in finding it for me:wavey::love2::wavey:

 

[preacher4truth]

Which post did LK24 post where he claimed God does this evil that you write about? I must have missed that post????

maybe QF could assist you in finding it for me:wavey::love2::wavey:

Or maybe a post that misses the mark by sank with the ad nauseum and unfounded thumbs up by quff? :wavey:

 

[Luke2427]

With all due respect, I'm not seeing the answer to my question. What is the difference in God doing any given act for his glory and His ordaining any given act for his glory?

You've already established that his motive is what determines whether it is good or evil thus what is the point in making this distinction between 'doing' and 'ordaining' the given act? And further what specifically is that distinction? Can you give an example of God doing a given act for his glory and contrast it with his merely ordaining a given act for his glory?

It does answer it.

Privation.

That's how.

Privation.

That's the answer.

Now, we don't even HAVE to HAVE an answer. All we need is to know that God's Word says he does not do evil and God's word says that he ordains all things that come to pass. If we could not reconcile those things- so what? They are not illogical. One can ORDAIN something to come to pass without DOING it himself. You don't need me to provide examples of that. They are legion. So since it CAN happen, and it DOES happen every day, it is not illogical to say that God is not doing evil while ordaining that evil be done. We don't have to reconcile exactly HOW.

But we can with privation.

 

[Skandelon]

It does answer it.

Privation.

That's how.

Privation.

That's the answer.

Now, we don't even HAVE to HAVE an answer. All we need is to know that God's Word says he does not do evil and God's word says that he ordains all things that come to pass. If we could not reconcile those things- so what? They are not illogical. One can ORDAIN something to come to pass without DOING it himself. You don't need me to provide examples of that. They are legion. So since it CAN happen, and it DOES happen every day, it is not illogical to say that God is not doing evil while ordaining that evil be done. We don't have to reconcile exactly HOW.

But we can with privation.

so you would agree with the quote below:

Augustine defined evil as the privation of goodness, just as blindness is a privation of sight. Since evil is not an entity in itself, just like blindness is not an entity in itself, God could not have created it.

Instead, evil originates from free will possessed by angels and humans, who turned their back on God and settled for a lesser form of goodness thus creating a privation of goodness, as the narrative of ‘the fall’ in Genesis 3 tries to explain. As a result the state of perfection was ruined by sin.​

 

[Luke2427]

so you would agree with the quote below:

Augustine defined evil as the privation of goodness, just as blindness is a privation of sight. Since evil is not an entity in itself, just like blindness is not an entity in itself, God could not have created it.

Instead, evil originates from free will possessed by angels and humans, who turned their back on God and settled for a lesser form of goodness thus creating a privation of goodness, as the narrative of ‘the fall’ in Genesis 3 tries to explain. As a result the state of perfection was ruined by sin.​

provide your citation so that we can get the context.

 

[Skandelon]

provide your citation so that we can get the context.

Reasonable request, but it was on my other computer so not sure where the specific quote came from, but if you google "Augustine privation of good free will" many of his teachings will come up.

The point being that historically the "privation of good" doctrine still based the origin of sin upon man's free will and I was wondering if you agreed with Augustine's teaching on this? You seem to be under the impression that the 'privation of goodness' doctrine, with which I am in agreement, somehow answers the question of sins origin, when in reality it only answers the question as to the condition by which sin originated. Man still had to desire/choose to sin while goodness was removed. The motive didn't come from nothing.

 

[DHK]

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Here Peter balances both sides.
The wickedness of the death of cross was pre-determined. "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God."

But Peter does not let the Jewish leaders, whom he is addressing at this point in history, off the hook.
They must take responsibility for their actions. They were the ones who delivered him up. They were responsible for his death. They made the choice to rile up the crowd "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
And they made the choice when they took responsibility and said: "His blood be upon us and our generations forever."

It was "by wicked hands (they have) crucified and slain," the Holy One of Israel, the Christ, and they are fully responsible for it.

 

[quantumfaith]

Which post did LK24 post where he claimed God does this evil that you write about? I must have missed that post????

maybe QF could assist you in finding it for me:wavey::love2::wavey:

I will be glad to comment ICON, you know full well that SKAN was not "quoting" anything by Luke, rather offering a hypothetical statement for the purpose of clarifying. Your "drive by" claim of blasphemy was simply that a drive by and disingenuous at best. As for your little parrot PFT.....well I will just choose not to reply at the moment.

 

[Winman]

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Here Peter balances both sides.
The wickedness of the death of cross was pre-determined. "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God."

But Peter does not let the Jewish leaders, whom he is addressing at this point in history, off the hook.
They must take responsibility for their actions. They were the ones who delivered him up. They were responsible for his death. They made the choice to rile up the crowd "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
And they made the choice when they took responsibility and said: "His blood be upon us and our generations forever."

It was "by wicked hands (they have) crucified and slain," the Holy One of Israel, the Christ, and they are fully responsible for it.

This is all easily understood within God's foreknowledge as the verse says. What God determined was that Jesus would be "delivered". Jesus willingly allowed himself to be taken, he did not HAVE to. He told Peter he could have called on his Father, and his Father SHOULD send more than twelve legions of angels. So, the Father would have delivered Jesus if he would have requested it. But Jesus obeyed his Father and allowed himself to be taken.

God did not determine that the Jewish leaders would wickedly take Jesus and crucify him, although God in his foreknowledge knew that is exactly what they would do.

 

[Luke2427]

Reasonable request, but it was on my other computer so not sure where the specific quote came from, but if you google "Augustine privation of good free will" many of his teachings will come up.

The point being that historically the "privation of good" doctrine still based the origin of sin upon man's free will and I was wondering if you agreed with Augustine's teaching on this? You seem to be under the impression that the 'privation of goodness' doctrine, with which I am in agreement, somehow answers the question of sins origin, when in reality it only answers the question as to the condition by which sin originated. Man still had to desire/choose to sin while goodness was removed. The motive didn't come from nothing.

I agree that privation is the source of evil.

I do not think "free will" is is philosophically sound- at least if by it is meant "contra-causal free will."

Contra-causal anything as it pertains to created beings is utterly philosophically impossible and ridiculous.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree that privation is the source of evil.

I do not think "free will" is is philosophically sound- at least if by it is meant "contra-causal free will."

Contra-causal anything as it pertains to created beings is utterly philosophically impossible and ridiculous.

Three things.

1. Augustine argued that sin was a result of man's free will and resulted in the privation of good (at least from what I've read thus far on the topic). I'm not seeing where any scholar uses the privation doctrine to make your case that something (motive to sin) came from nothing.

2. How do you define contra-causal free will?

3. And do you believe contra-causal freedom is only 'philosophically impossible and ridiculous' for created beings, or would you find it to be equally untenable for the Divine?

 

[Luke2427]

Three things.

1. Augustine argued that sin was a result of man's free will and resulted in the privation of good (at least from what I've read thus far on the topic). I'm not seeing where any scholar uses the privation doctrine to make your case that something (motive to sin) came from nothing.

2. How do you define contra-causal free will?

3. And do you believe contra-causal freedom is only 'philosophically impossible and ridiculous' for created beings, or would you find it to be equally untenable for the Divine?

1. Still need citations so we can discuss context.

2. Choosing without there being causes for the choice.

3. Created beings.

 

[Skandelon]

1. Still need citations so we can discuss context.

Here is one...

Augustine defined evil as the privation of goodness, just as blindness is a privation of sight. Since evil is not an entity in itself, just like blindness is not an entity in itself, God could not have created it.

Instead, evil originates from free will possessed by angels and humans, who turned their back on God and settled for a lesser form of goodness thus creating a privation of goodness, as the narrative of ‘the fall’ in Genesis 3 tries to explain. As a result the state of perfection was ruined by sin.

Natural Evil: Occurred because of the loss of order in nature, defined by Augustine as the ‘penal consequences of sin’

Moral Evil: Derived from human free will and disobedience​

2. Choosing without there being causes for the choice.

Awww, there is the problem. That is not our definition.

"A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

The agent is the cause of his choices. The choosers makes choices. The determiners makes determinations, so asking what determines a man's choice is much like asking what determined God's choices in THIS regard, for we can no more explore the mind of God and all its complexities than we can a being created in His image and morally responsible.

3. Created beings.

So you deny omnipotence? God is just not able to create beings with the same type of contra-causal freedom as He himself has? And for what reason? Because you, from your finite and very limited perspective, can't understand or define it and thus have deemed it impossible? Does that about sum it up?

 

[Luke2427]

Here is one...

Augustine defined evil as the privation of goodness, just as blindness is a privation of sight. Since evil is not an entity in itself, just like blindness is not an entity in itself, God could not have created it.

Instead, evil originates from free will possessed by angels and humans, who turned their back on God and settled for a lesser form of goodness thus creating a privation of goodness, as the narrative of ‘the fall’ in Genesis 3 tries to explain. As a result the state of perfection was ruined by sin.​

Quote from it please so I don't have to read the whole article. I am, as you are, very busy.

Awww, there is the problem. That is not our definition.

"A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

Its the same thing.

It still has people choosing one thing over the other without cause.

Why did you choose a hamburger over a hotdog?

Because my WILL is FREE!!!!

No, because you WANTED a hamburger over a hotdog at that moment that you made the choice.

There is always a reason people choose what they choose at any given moment. And there is a reason the agent desires what he desires at any given moment.

The agent is the cause of his choices. The choosers makes choices. The determiners makes determinations, so asking what determines a man's choice is much like asking what determined God's choices

No its nothing like that. God is infinite, and eternal. Nothing could be a worse conflation than the one you just made.

So you deny omnipotence? God is just not able to create beings with the same type of contra-causal freedom as He himself has?

I should not have to tell you that omnipotence has NOTHING to do with God being able to do anything like lie or be illogical which would be against his nature.​

 

[Winman]

Quote from it please so I don't have to read the whole article. I am, as you are, very busy.

Its the same thing.

It still has people choosing one thing over the other without cause.

Why did you choose a hamburger over a hotdog?

Because my WILL is FREE!!!!

No, because you WANTED a hamburger over a hotdog at that moment that you made the choice.

There is always a reason people choose what they choose at any given moment. And there is a reason the agent desires what he desires at any given moment.

No its nothing like that. God is infinite, and eternal. Nothing could be a worse conflation than the one you just made.

I should not have to tell you that omnipotence has NOTHING to do with God being able to do anything like lie or be illogical which would be against his nature.

Boy, talk about an argument that is EASY to refute, Paul clearly refutes this nonsense.

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Paul repeatedly says that he does things he does not want to do here.

Pretty much DESTROYS Luke's false view.

 

[agedman]

Boy, talk about an argument that is EASY to refute, Paul clearly refutes this nonsense.

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Paul repeatedly says that he does things he does not want to do here.

Pretty much DESTROYS Luke's false view.

Actually, Winman, Paul supports Luke's view.

And so would Augustine:

Augustine reasoned that all humans are worthy of the punishment of evil and suffering because we are “seminally present in the loins of Adam”, deserving of the punishment for original sin. (This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin -- "immaculate conception" means no sperm were involved.) In Augustine's day, descendants of criminals were usually expected to continue to suffer and pay for the crimes of their ancestors, so this idea that blame for Adam's sin extends to all Adam's descendants would not have been considered strange.

In other words, because all humans inherit Adam's blame, God has the right to permit Adam's descendents to suffer, since he is a just God and we are worthy of punishment. It is by his grace and infinite love however, that we (some of us, those to whom he chooses to give grace) are able to accept his offer of salvation and eternal life in heaven. (from The Problem of Evil and Theodicies)


​

Paul was just making statements that support the war of the worlds is not just outward, but internal in every believer - giving himself as an example.

Folks often miss that Augustine didn't state that "modern" humans have free will (in the sense that some use it today). But that original (Adam and Eve) had free will. Such was obviously taken away at the fall, and humankind has sense resided in deprivation of goodness until a new nature is formed.

See the quote from Augustine, above for clarification.

 

[Winman]

Actually, Winman, Paul supports Luke's view.

And so would Augustine:

Augustine reasoned that all humans are worthy of the punishment of evil and suffering because we are “seminally present in the loins of Adam”, deserving of the punishment for original sin. (This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin -- "immaculate conception" means no sperm were involved.) In Augustine's day, descendants of criminals were usually expected to continue to suffer and pay for the crimes of their ancestors, so this idea that blame for Adam's sin extends to all Adam's descendants would not have been considered strange.

In other words, because all humans inherit Adam's blame, God has the right to permit Adam's descendents to suffer, since he is a just God and we are worthy of punishment. It is by his grace and infinite love however, that we (some of us, those to whom he chooses to give grace) are able to accept his offer of salvation and eternal life in heaven. (from The Problem of Evil and Theodicies)


​

Paul was just making statements that support the war of the worlds is not just outward, but internal in every believer - giving himself as an example.

Folks often miss that Augustine didn't state that "modern" humans have free will (in the sense that some use it today). But that original (Adam and Eve) had free will. Such was obviously taken away at the fall, and humankind has sense resided in deprivation of goodness until a new nature is formed.

See the quote from Augustine, above for clarification.

Then Jesus would have been evil, because he was MADE of the SEED of David according to the FLESH.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

The scriptures say concerning flesh and blood, that Jesus took part of THE SAME as us.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Jesus was made of the same exact FLESH we are, which he inherited from his mother Mary. God does not have flesh, God is spirit. Jesus was called the "son of David". He was descended from David from his mother, God is not a descendant of any man.

Not only did Jesus have the same exact flesh as us, he also took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (not Adam as many falsely teach) and was made like unto his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Scripture also says that God cannot be tempted (Jam 1:13) but Jesus was able to be tempted. Why? Because he inherited this from his mother. He "suffered" being tempted, and was tempted in ALL POINTS like as we are, yet without sin.

We are born flesh, and the flesh wars against the spirit, but the flesh does not choose for us. Our flesh does not make us evil.

Eve was tempted by the three worldly lusts in Gen 3:6, but she was VERY GOOD according to God himself (Gen 1:31).

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve was tempted by the three worldly lusts described in 1 Jhn 2:16 BEFORE she actually sinned and became a sinner.

She saw the tree was good for food. This is the lust of the flesh. She saw it was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes. She saw it was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life.

Eve had these natural lusts BEFORE she sinned. It is not our lusts that make us evil, it is when we choose to obey these lusts when they would cause us to transgress God's law that we become evil sinners. If Eve would have walked away, she would have been no sinner.

Likewise, Jesus felt the pull and tug of his flesh, he was very hungry after he fasted 40 days, and this is why the devil tempted him to turn stones into bread.

So, having flesh that tempts us does not make us evil, it is when we choose to disobey God to fulfill these lusts that we become evil.

 

[agedman]

When God formed the earth, He called it "good" not perfect.

Obviously, evil was already present at the formation, for He put a tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden.

Do we have such a tree available to modern man?

Are we not all formed and prone to evil and have to be taught good?

Adam did not have to be taught what was good but what was evil - don't eat the fruit of that tree. Was the tree itself evil? Would God have placed evil in the garden?

I do not agree that "privation" is the source of evil.

Lucifer was not in "privation" (lacking full or sufficient) in resources, knowledge, or ability when "evil was found in his heart." Ezekiel 28

“You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you."
​

Some would use human understanding and have two (perhaps three) conditions that can exist. That which is and that which isn't. For example Pathos (feelings) and the opposite antipathy (anti-pathos - or opposed feelings). One is to consider something good, or evil opposite. The third would be some neutral position residing in the medium.

But, consider the thinking that evil is not a "privation" of good, but a "perversion" of good.

Lucifer took good and claimed it for himself. Certainly, that was depriving God of glorification, but if we follow the thinking of some on the thread - such privation obliges God be considered evil (being deprived of glory) and Lucifer being as good having the glory.

Rather, God remained God, and Lucifer has continued from that time to pervert the truth into a lie.

All good has the ability to be marred by perversion. The earth was good, the garden was good, the wholesomeness of all creation was good, but the good was made perverse - not deprived - it remains that God allows the rain on the just and unjust.

Often we humankind dwell in the thinking of either/or - neither/nor rather than catching a glimpse of better,best, worse, worst.

God gave the law to show what was best and establish that which was not the best.

The OP seeks to discuss "On what grounds can one speak about a past atrocity as being "evil" when it was determined by God for his Glory?"

IMO it is the same issue as what was foundational to the earliest account of evil - perverting good into self adulation.

God determined all for His glory (the heavens declare the glory of God and such other verses) but perversion brings atrocities. Doesn't mean that good does not still exist.