Featured How do we define what is good and evil?

I’ll add my 2 cents on this discussion of defining the origin of evil on the fly by:

Regarding the moral standard that transcends God:
God is Only Good and He is also Only Truth and it is within the nature of this Truth, the self-imposed “aseity” of God that He sovereignly operates within. God is indeed limited by His own TRUTH of His Nature and this Nature does not change… even to fit the Determinist Doctrines.

You boys seem to think God’s sovereignty must live up to your (Calvin’s) truth, and somehow this must mean that He must be responsible for evil existing; but in reality this line of thought only goes toward denying all-knowing God to be Only Good, to maintain perfection in His attribute of only being Good, which in fact downgrades His sovereignty by denying He abides by His Nature in (Truth).

God is Truth; therefore He is sovereign within Truth. We believe His Word is truth because He is Truth. It is no less than to fall into theological fatalism to not believe in God as being 100% unchanging Truth in His Nature.

Again, God’s attributes can ONLY involve being Good and yet evil can still exist in the world which He created and God still be sovereign over the universe at the same time. This is a necessary truth and the “how” doesn’t matter near as much as holding to this truth of His Nature. God, in His omnipotent-omniscient “aseity” exists in Truth in all His attributes, including Omnibenevolence, as a necessity of His Nature. Anyone who begins to deny the Divine attribute of Omnibenevolence to fit their doctrine is clearly on the wrong path.

 

Evil is evil because God has defined it as such. Calvinists can praise God that even the evil acts of wicked men are under God's sovereign control.
The ungodly do indeed celebrate sin...everyday. They will give an account for the works done in the body.
The elect used to do the same...but now being drawn savingly by God's effectual calling....are now ashamed of those things

God will be glorified in all things ....the salvation of the elect...the damnation of the wicked who remained in their celebration of sin.

When I talk with people out here in public , and they have this kind of sceptical, and somewhat evil questions about God and His motives...I point out that the only place of refuge is IN Christ...because God's wrath is revealed from heaven against these sins....
I tell them if and when they trust in Jesus ...they will be a new creature in Christ. these doubts and speculations will go away , as the Spirit opens up all of God's word to them.
It just seems as if many of them...even those who profess religion of some kind...have invented their own god ...who does not do what the biblical God does. At that point...I show them verses that leave no doubt that the God of the bible is in complete control of all things , and that the little god they have invented will have to die first, before they can come to know the true God:thumbs::thumbs: When someone thinks evil of God and His motives...it seems a pretty good indication that something is wrong in their soul...:thumbs:

 

Anytime theology seeks refuge in absurdity, a red flag should drop indicating the theology misstates God's divine purpose.

The premise that God mistreating man demonstrates His glory is such an absurdity.

The easiest way to think of what is good, is something that is suitable for its purpose. So a bad example would be a good example of a bad example.

Next we must deal with the chestnut that only God is good. What this says is we are tarnished and imperfect, flawed and therefore not perfectly good. Only God is good from the standpoint of being without flaw. But this must be balanced with the idea that a sinner can give good gifts to their children, thus the lack of perfection does not nullify the possible usefulness of our efforts.

So lets start with these simple definitions, Good is something suitable for a purpose, so what God considers good would be according to His purpose and plan, even if that something was a calamity resulting to pain, suffering and death. Evil would be something that goes against our needs and expectations. However, for something to be evil in God's eyes, it would have to go against His purpose and plan. Thus if God's purpose and plan was to allow us to make autonomous choices that result in evil in His eyes, because that capacity to choose was necessary to fulfill His purpose and plan, then God's allowance would not be evil in His eyes.

Let me close by debunking one other myth, God is claimed to be omnibenevolent. The idea is that since God is good, this means He never does anything that those affected would consider evil. This is pure fiction. All things work together for good for those who love Him, but Hades and Gehenna await those who do not.

 

Evil exists because God gave men and demons the capacity to choose, and without that capacity evil never would have existed. But because God is sovereign and knows the end from the beginning (including the infinite number of causes and effects that will never happen, what some call alternate realities), he can and does work everything out according to his will. God is not too small to need to coerce every human decision by compulsion in order to fulfill his plan. He is much bigger than that!

 

How do I define "good" & "evil"?

Good: anything that comes directly from God.

Evil: anything that comes directly from satan.

 

Regarding this point, I can only suppose that the Calvinist believes that God will defeat something (evil), that He created, that He decreed and controls every action of and that which origins came directly from Him ... and this is how He comes to His glory... ...; God takes glory in defeating the evil that He Himself has sovereignly cast upon us and controls... ..., and will destroy that evil "adversary" that is actually from Him, in the end? Surely I am missing something here about the Calvinist reasoning and philosophies about the origins and purposes of evil being sovereignly determined upon us all to bring the glory of God in a victory against the same?

 

Some remain in rebellion which is evil.Psalm 2 speaks to them;
Psalm 2

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.


Some perish for evil thinking and rebellion as if their clever wording and speeches could have any effect on the decree...

 

Indeed:

(Deu 32:4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth "and" without iniquity, just and right is he.

(1Jn 1:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

(Jas 1:13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

(Isa 5:20) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!



(Eph 5:11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.





:smilewinkgrin:

 

Benjamin,
Whats that you've done. Is that a just say IcoNo?!?!?!

 

And YOU Icon are wrong to imply, however subtle, that other professing believers here are "heathen" and remain in rebellion. Just because someone does not see God and theology through an identical lens as do you, that does make them so. You should retreat from such a claim.

 

The scriptures of cource.

They are the standard that everything should be tested against.

 

Benjamine...

Calvinism. I feel so very sorry for those still holding to such a bizzare and nonsensical man made theory

 

:laugh::laugh: good verses

 

QF,

In psalm 2....it is the wicked ,who speak wickedly of God and His decree.
There are some here who seem to delight in viewing God as having evil motives despite being corrected many times.
We know of course that everyone on BB is saved.....so you do not need to worry about such things:wavey:
I do not notice your same sense of outrage when people speak about a god who does evil things....or who is not in control of all things whatsoever comes to pass....:thumbsup:

 

Yep, too bad you don't understand them. :tongue3:

 

Although we all know what a difficult prospect it is to ascertain the heart, intent and motives of another, I am convinced, as I think YOU are too that no one makes such arguments out of a sense of defining God as wicked. Perhaps a little overzealous in explaining how they see YOU and your view at their interpretation of its logical conclusion. I see most arguments (I think you are referring to) to be prefaced by "if things are as you say" (or something similar).

 

God has to win no victory over any actual adversary. None exists who can stand at the feet of God and overcome Him.

HE IS GOD! NNE ELSE IS GOD!

You have just expressed THE most heretical statement of all that you have ever expressed on this board.

As for "playing both sides of the chessboard (so to speak)" you have also just erected another strawman of the opposition. Quit it already. You either know better by now, or are working for anti-Christ.

 

What was the "sic" beside of "their" for? That was the correct spelling of their.