Problem of Evil (Sproul's version)

See, this almost seems heretical.

"Frequently I hear Christians give an easy answer to the problem of evil; they declasr facilely that evil originates in man's free will. I call this facile because it fails to get at the root of the problem..."

He then give us the passage Gen 3:1-7.

"The question is, Why did they do it? And how did they fo it?" His alternatives ~

1) "Satan coerced them" -- "but there is no coercion seen" and the "guilt would be Satan's and not theirs." (Hmm. Makes one wonder who is "guilty" of being saved if one is "drawn" "irresistibly" to "grace.")

2) "they were deceived by Satan" -- "The problem with this explanation, however, is with assigning guilt to innocent victims of decption. If Adam and Eve were totally deceived they would have sinned in ignorance." (NOTE: Adam was NOT deceived.)

3) "So the question comes back to free will." "they sinned because they wanted to sin ... desire to sin is already sin -- without desire they could not sin -- If they acted against their desire then they would be acting against their own will, and choice would not have been free -- If the act was truly free... they must have had a evil desire to begin with -- from whence did it come?" That is, will wasn't free.

Now the usual Calvinist copout (I don't know and neither does anyone who says they do know.) -- "I do not know the solution to the problem of evil. Nor do I know anyone who does."

"This does not mean I have not reached my own conclusions on the matter. ... Most importantly perhaps is the conclusion that ultimately it must be good that there is evil or evil would not exist. ... not the same thing as saying that evil is good." :BangHead: "However to say that it is good that there is evil is simply to declare that God is good and that His providence extends to all things, including evil."

In essence, God created evil desire in Adam and Eve and "it was good."

WHY is this not a formulation that good is evil and evil good ("blasphemy of the Holy Spirit")??

WHY isn't the explanation of free will (2 or 3 above) the truth (were you convinced by his logic?)?? Isn't there the possiblity that their wills were NOT inherently evil? That Eve WAS deceived and still guilty (or Adam, at least, was not deceived and guilty? --- Sproul muddles the story so much it is no wonder he came to his conclusion).

Is this man the mouthpiece for Cavlinism that I think he is? IOW, is this Calvinism's conclusion regarding the problem of sin?? I am at my wit's end not to call Sproul's formulation "heretical."

skypair

 

Is this post...

too long? Incomprehensaible?

Please, help me with this. How is Sproul not saying that evil is good? Is this orthodox Calvinism?

skypair

 

Sorry, I should have cited the source -- The Invisble Hand Chapter on "Providence and the Problem of Evil."

And he anwered it to HIS satisfaction but saying that evil is "God's will" is heretical, IMO.

He goes on (next chapter) to saying that good and evil can be "proximate" and "ultimate." This seems to be an effort to deflect criticsim -- there is "good-good, good-evil, evil-good, and evil-evil" so he says ("proximate-ultimate" pattern). Still, if there is evil-evil (such as lost and ultimately damned), we're still talking about God creating evil for evil's sake!

Here's my explanation to J.D. on another thread: Because God did NOT create evil, it has been demonstrated in nature that we and Satan have sovereignty in some areas that, while they go against God's will, do NOT change God's ability to bring all His purposes to His ends.

Like Sproul tries to explain regarding good and evil -- there is "proximate" and "ultimate" good and evil. This may be true but it doesn't get Sproul "off the hook" for his claim that God created evil. I believe Sproul (and you) has that argument confused with the sovereignty argument -- that there is "proximate" and "ultimate" sovereignty and God is ALWAYS ULTIMATELY sovereign!

Proximate sovereignty is given to man whereby Adam could sovereigntly choose to disobey AND INTRODUCE EVIL INTO GOD'S CREATION!! Ultimate sovereignty tells us that Adam isn't going to get away with it! :laugh: And God's ultimate purposes and will are served despite evil and despite His not having total sovereignty.

skypair

 

I agree. Thinking about it last night, it occurred to me that his explanations in 2 and 3 were "protective" of the conclusion Sproul didn't want to come to -- that God is NOT completely sovereign.

In 2, we know from Paul that Adam was not deceived. In 3, he says "they must have had an evil desire to begin with." Yes! It was NOT of God! That is prcisely why God did not create evil.

One step further, if I'm allowed --- anytime that "self" as a separate identity from God is involved (ex. Lucifer), there is ALWAYS a desire toward self. If self knew all that God knows, self wouldn't desire what God has not given.

Saved, we now acknowledge this and there will be no temptation of self in eternity. But these created beings did not have the mind of God/Christ AND Satan and self in a cursed earth are still players.

Do we agree then that God has given men and angels "self" sovereignty? That it was the "God completely sovereign" belief that led Sproul to say "I don't know the answer and neither does anybody I know know it." (Which presumes that complete sovereignty is true and, barring that explanation, there is no explanation)?

Russ -- "...must be good that evil exists or there wouldn't be evil." This is part of the sentence where Sproul said that "God must have willed evil..." Basically, it follows the thought that all that God wills will be done.

skypair

 

I don't and you are right! And how can you be a Calvinist and believe that He is NOT totally, completely sovereign??

skypair

 

First question: "Create?" My position is that it is not within Him at all. If He "wills" it, does that not make Him responsible for it? Let's go back to that issue. Sproul says 1) he doesn't know and 2) it MUST be in God's will or it wouldn't exist. Does that mean "create" to you? Does that mean God is responsible for sin to you? The point is, what is the option to sovereignty, right?

Second question: If God CHOOSES to allow evil, couldn't He also CHOOSE to let mankind be sovereign over his/her personal life? "Allow" is relinquishing of sovereiengty, is it not?

To me, Sproul had the answer all along -- evil came by Adam's free will which God allowed! But since Sproul is unwilling to consider free will, he 1) doesn't know the answer and 2) drives his own theological paradign to the WRONG answer!

skypair

 

You're "waffling," russ. Does the ends justify the means EVER??

He doesn't know how evil entered the world. He gives his best "guestimate" which gets him into trouble, perhaps even with Calvinism (which is what I am trying to find out).

Ah, now you show the same fault as all Calvinists -- that God couldn't "foreknow" (simply foresee it) evil so He must have "created"/predestined/ordained it. The problem is, that gives Him responsibility for evil rather than merely foreknowing and planning "around" it.

That God "allows" an option outside His will, He actually let's someone else have sovereignty over that option.

Simple, by controlling the outcomes. Your problem is in your explanation of "permissive will." If God permits something that He hasn't made the decision about, then it is patently obvious that He has released His sovereignty regarding that decision to someone else.

Can't -- it's back at the library.


skypair

 

Given sovereignty to us? So it's NOT complete and total sovereignty that God has?