Problem of Evil (Sproul's version)

[skypair]

I had devoted another thread in the past to passages that many Christians would rather not have in the Bible . These sections of Holy Writ are too uncomfortable for them -- they are upsetting their version of who God is .

In Isaiah 13 the Lord used the Medes to do His special work . He raised them up , ordained them to do His bidding . In verse 3 it says ( in the NLTse ) : I, the Lord , have dedicated these soldiers for this task .

He consecrated them for His purposes -- they were used as His instruments of wrath . They were set apart . He stirred them up . He directed them to do His will . Verse 5 says that : They are the Lord's weapons to carry out his anger .

Following are verses 15 to 18 .

Anyone who is captured will be cut down -- run through with a sword . Their children wil be dashed to death before their eyes . Their homes will be sacked , and their wives will be raped . " Look , I will stir up the Medes against Babylon . They cannot be tempted by silver or bribed with gold . The attacking armies will shoot down the young men with arrows . They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for children . "

There is no getting around that when God foresaw that Israel would rebel and apostacize, that He would bring their sovereignty to naught. There is also no doubt that if and when they obeyed, God changed their destiny. Look at Hezekiah -- repenting and asking not to die. God granted him 15 more years! God controls the outcomes, rippon. He "has mercy on whom He will..."

He lets us make SOVEREIGN personal decisions that reveal out belief or unbelief and then He takes the good or bad and uses it to His glory through controlling the consequences of those decisions. Let's face it -- if He didn't have mercy (control the consequences of our sin), we'd all be dead already!

skypair

 

[russell55]

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

No one said the ends by itself justifies the means. However, anything done with the right intent and that results in the right end is a justifiable act. Therefore, anything done for the sole intent of glorifying God and that actually glorifies him in the end is righteous.

For us, as human beings, that means acting according to God's commands, since anything else would be rebellion and thus not done with the intent of glorifying God. Anything else would fall short in the area of intent, even though, in the end, it might glorify God in the same way that the acts of those who crucified Christ ended up glorifying God by being part of the means through which God overcame sin, death, evil.

For God, it means purposefully allowing rebellious acts into the world so that he could redeem sinners and bring glory to himself in that way. In that case, the intent is righteous (glorifying God), and the end result is righteous (it actually does glorify God.)

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).

No one knows the mechanics of how evil entered the world because we aren't told. All anyone can do is guestimate. What we can know is that the fall, of both men and angels, is purposefully allowed by God.

And it is because of the purposefulness of the decision to allow the fall that we can use the word ordained for the presence of evil in creation. The words ordained or predestined doesn't necessarily carry with them the idea of created.

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.

The problem is that if he foresees it, he can't simply foresee it, because he has the power to prevent it. Therefore, he must make a decision in regards to it, whether to prevent it or not. That decision in regards to it is called predestination or foreordaination.

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

If God allows a certain choice to be made and carried out when it was in his power to prevent it, then he is the one with sovereignty over that choice. The person made the choice, but God had sovereignty over it, because he is still the highest authority over that choice, based on his ultimate power to prevent it.

And if God makes the decision to allow someone to make a certain choice and carry it out, then that option isn't outside his sovereign will, because he made a decision (willed) to allow it.

Simple, by controlling the outcomes.

There's a reason they are called outcomes. They are results of causes (or means). Outcomes are controlled by controlling the causes that produce them. If God controls the outcomes, then he controlls the means by which those outcomes occur.

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.

How can God permit something without making a decision about it? Doesn't He have to make the decision to permit it?

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

Pity. Then it's really impossible to deal with Sproul's ideas in the subject.

 

[johnp.]

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

As far as you're concerned skypair He is not only not Sovereign, not even God at all but Adam that was with Eve if I remember you right.

Are you getting my drift?

Adrift you mean?

john.

 

[DQuixote]

Suggestion: Stop reading Sproul. :thumbs:

 

[skypair]

However, anything done with the right intent and that results in the right end is a justifiable act. Therefore, anything done for the sole intent of glorifying God and that actually glorifies him in the end is righteous.

So the fact that a vast majority of all God's creation is going to hell glorifies God?? is the "right end" and "justifiable act??" No, russ. That is PURE evil --- what Sproul calls "evil-evil" (evil proximately and evil ultimately) --- if God is omnipotent! Can God not do good with ALL??

Anything else would fall short in the area of intent, even though, in the end, it might glorify God in the same way that the acts of those who crucified Christ ended up glorifying God by being part of the means through which God overcame sin, death, evil.

Here you agree with my own paradigm and not Sproul's. In my view, God turns all consequences to His own good. Jesus could have been accepted/good or rejected/evil by Israel and God would still made the outcome "for good."

Under Sproul's view, God made/directed those people crucify His Son. Or he might say "allowed" them to do it -- which acknowledges their sovereignty to do so as is my position (which Sproul would never agree to though it is "plain as the nose on his face!" :laugh: )

b][For God, it means purposefully allowing...[/b] Go no farther -- you have admitted that God relinquishes His sovereignty in the literal understanding of the concept.

...rebellious acts into the world so that he could redeem sinners and bring glory to himself in that way.

Yes, and that WOULD glorify God!! But if God couldn't make everyone to come, then evil exists and is "allowed" outside God's will and does NOT glorify Him.

No one knows the mechanics of how evil entered the world because we aren't told.

Those are Sproul's very words! Know what's wrong with them? They are "proud" (He even adds "nor can anyone else know..."). Also, they overlook the obvious truth simply because the obvious is also the UNACCEPTABLE truth! The obvious truth is that free will and presonhood were involved. If God had not made Lucifer nor Adam independent spirits, there would be no evil. But an independent spirit can choose to serve a) self or b) God. That is why the world is divided in scripture between a) believers and b) unbelievers.

But this explanation Sproul rejects on account of the huge shadow it casts over ALL of Calvinism!!

All anyone can do is guestimate. What we can know is that the fall, of both men and angels, is purposefully allowed by God.

I.e. you are starting to "see the light!" :laugh:

And it is because of the purposefulness of the decision to allow the fall that we can use the word ordained for the presence of evil in creation. The words ordained or predestined doesn't necessarily carry with them the idea of created.

Excellent!! What we CAN say is the God "foresaw" evil --- "ordained" that it should be included and taken care of by His plan --- and "predestined" that those who "overcame" evil should be saved.

The problem is that if he foresees it, he can't simply foresee it, because he has the power to prevent it.

OK --- power to prevent it. Does He? Sure, eventually - right? So why doesn't He NOW? Because it is a "test" overcoming which we are come, through Christ our Overcomer, to inherit glory.

Under your scenario, sure, God could have stood by that tree all day and all night even keeping Adam and Eve from it. Why allow evil? So that men who would live with Him forever would have a "tested positive disposition" toward God -- not "untested" like Adam but "tested." Isn't that what we see in scripture, russ? In every life we can think of there is a "good-evil test." Man "passes" it by obeying God out of a free will -- out of a host of other options over which God has allowed man to be personally sovereign.

Therefore, he must make a decision in regards to it, whether to prevent it or not.

Yes, and on account of His decision, therefore WE must decide too.

That decision in regards to it is called predestination or foreordaination.

God already knew the ends He wanted -- a heaven full of agreeable children! He would have got a full heaven by barring Adam from the tree but it would have been the same thing as by "electing" them there (of "predestining" them there) -- basically they would be "untested." Cause what is the test? It is to CHOOSE God or choose not/self. "Being a good sport" in going along with God's "gameplan" and "playbook" is what the Pharisees tried to do -- play the "game" without the "Coach."

The person made the choice, but God had sovereignty over it, because he is still the highest authority over that choice, based on his ultimate power to prevent it.

NO, God ALWAYS has the potential to intervene. He does NOT have sovereignty unless He DOES intervene! The point of "sovereign intervention" in most people's lives is the "invited" intervention of salvation. He intervenes before and after that with "mercy" wherein we don't get what we deserve (whereas Satan "intervenes" giving us precisely what we deserve!).

But in salvation/grace, He gives us what we don't deserve -- His life for ours.

There's a reason they are called outcomes. They are results of causes (or means). Outcomes are controlled by controlling the causes that produce them. If God controls the outcomes, then he controlls the means by which those outcomes occur.

Right, we are definitely beyond describing "cause and effect" when it comes to God's sovereignty. We're talking about us making evil decisions and God NOT giving us that effect. It's pretty much God that keeps a marriage together noadays, wouldn't you agree?

How can God permit something without making a decision about it? Doesn't He have to make the decision to permit it?

Your latter statement is correct. Calvinists often call it "permissive will." This is nothing more than saying the God has given someone else limited or all sovereignty over the situation. Take Job for instance. God gave Satan "limited" sovereignty over Job's life. Satan could do anything except kill Job. So now you have the clash of Satan's and Job's sovereignties -- Satan trying to get Job to curse God and die, and Job choosing to seek out the God he knows is his strength (those two - death or life - were within Job's personal and sovereign choices, right?).

Thus, God's decision was to remit some sovereignty to both Satan and Job -- which is something He has also given to you and me, BTW.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Suggestion: Stop reading Sproul. :thumbs:

That's good :thumbs:

But my question really is, do we stop reading Calvin, too??

skypair

 

[Rippon]

Read , study , meditate on Scripture primarily . But by all means read Sproul , Packer , Pink , Spurgeon , Boice , Dr. L-J , Asahel Nettleton ( who died on May 16,1844) , Reymond , Macarthur , Owen , Thomas Goodwin , John Calvin , Bunyan , and other solid , sound , biblical men of God .

BYW , Jonathan Edwards is particularly good . Read his work : The Justice Of God In The Damnation Of Sinners .

Oh , SP , "foresaw" is not the same as "ordain" . God does not just know the future -- He determines , fixes , decrees , establishes , predestines etc. Forseeing is a bit on the weak side for the Sovereign Lord of all .

 

[Rippon]

And ,... you should read Warfield , F.F. Bruce , Carl Henry , Gordon Clark , D.A. Carson , Doug Moo , Dan Wallace , Leon Morris , Darrell Bock , Timothy George , Roger Nicole and J.C. Ryle . I'll think of some more later .

 

[DQuixote]

Skypair...........

Stop reading Sproul, Packer, Calvin, Pink, MacArthur, Edwards, Warfield , F.F. Bruce , Carl Henry , Gordon Clark , D.A. Carson , Doug Moo , Dan Wallace , Leon Morris , Darrell Bock , Timothy George , Roger Nicole and J.C. Ryle .. in short, stop reading 5-point Calvinism / reformed theology.

:wavey: :laugh: :wavey: :saint: <---notice how the two guys wave in unison! Remarkable!

 

[Amy.G]

That's good :thumbs:

But my question really is, do we stop reading Calvin, too??

skypair

Who needs Calvin when you've got the Bible?
:thumbs:

 

[russell55]

So the fact that a vast majority of all God's creation is going to hell glorifies God?? is the "right end" and "justifiable act??"

First of all, who says it's a vast majority? How would we know?

Secondly, of course it glorifies God to punish sinners. It proves that he is righteous/just. All God's attributes are good, and showing himself for all that he is glorifies him.

No, russ. That is PURE evil --- what Sproul calls "evil-evil" (evil proximately and evil ultimately) --- if God is omnipotent! Can God not do good with ALL??

I don't understand much of this statement. God is good to all, but he cannot do good indefinitely to all, because in the end, justice must be served.

Here you agree with my own paradigm and not Sproul's. In my view, God turns all consequences to His own good. Jesus could have been accepted/good or rejected/evil by Israel and God would still made the outcome "for good."

Well, I certainly don't agree with your view. Romans 3 tells us that Jesus had to be crucified publicly because God had already passed over sin in Old Testament time. Jesus had to die because God is righteous. There was only one right outcome: Jesus had to be crucified.

Under Sproul's view, God made/directed those people crucify His Son

. Or he might say "allowed" them to do it

What Scripture says is that is that they did what they did "according to the definite plan of God" and that they did "whatever God's hand and God's plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 2 and 4)

-- which acknowledges their sovereignty to do so as is my position (which Sproul would never agree to though it is "plain as the nose on his face!" :laugh: )

We know that in this case, they weren't the highest authority (or sovereign) over their own decisions because they decided what they decided according to the definite plan of God. And that's as plain as the writing in scripture.

[For God, it means purposefully allowing... Go no farther -- you have admitted that God relinquishes His sovereignty in the literal understanding of the concept.

Absolutely not. That God is sovereign over a choice means that he is the ultimate authority over it. That is the literal definition of sovereignty: Supremacy of authority or rule. God is the supreme authority even over a choice that he allows because by choosing to allow it instead of prevent it, he ensure that it will take place.

But if God couldn't make everyone to come,

What? God isn't powerful enough to make people come?

then evil exists and is "allowed" outside God's will and does NOT glorify Him.

If God chooses to allow evil, then it's presence isn't outside of God's will.

Those are Sproul's very words! Know what's wrong with them? They are "proud" (He even adds "nor can anyone else know...").

No, they are humble. They are admitting that is unwise for mere humans to speak dogmatically about things that have not been revealed to us.

Also, they overlook the obvious truth simply because the obvious is also the UNACCEPTABLE truth!

You have no idea why Sproul (or I) overlook what you think is "an obvious truth." You would do well to accept the motive given to you--that we do not want to speak where scripture doesn't.

The obvious truth is that free will and presonhood were involved.

Scripture?

If God had not made Lucifer nor Adam independent spirits, there would be no evil.

Scripture?

But an independent spirit can choose to serve a) self or b) God.

That is why the world is divided in scripture between a) believers and b) unbelievers.

No one, least of all Sproul or I, doubts that Lucifer or Adam chose not to serve God. What we won't say is exactly how independent that choice it. BECAUSE WE AREN'T TOLD! And creatures are creatures. They are dependent on their Creator and never independent of him.

But this explanation Sproul rejects on account of the huge shadow it casts over ALL of Calvinism!!

Quote from Sproul, please, saying that he rejects if because it casts a huge shadow over all of Calvinism.

What we CAN say is the God "foresaw" evil

He foresaw it, yes, but on what basis did he foresee it? Did he foresee it because he planned it? Or does he "look down the corriders of time" and see it apart from his planning it?

OK --- power to prevent it. Does He? Sure, eventually - right? So why doesn't He NOW? Because it is a "test" overcoming which we are come, through Christ our Overcomer, to inherit glory.

See, even in your scheme, evil has a good purpose, right? It ultimately works to a good end, right?

Under your scenario, sure, God could have stood by that tree all day and all night even keeping Adam and Eve from it.

Under any scenario where God is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing he could have kept them from sinning. But he chose not to.

Could he have created Adam and Eve as already glorified human beings, like all believers will be in glory, always loving God perfectly and never choosing to sin?

Why allow evil? So that men who would live with Him forever would have a "tested positive disposition" toward God -- not "untested" like Adam but "tested."Isn't that what we see in scripture, russ?

I've never seen a passage that says that. Do you have one in mind? If so, then I'll add that to my list of reasons God allows evil.

I do know that we are told that God saves people from sin in order to glorify himself, and we are told that several times. (Ephesians 1 and 2, in particular.) In order for God to save people from sin, sin has to be present in creation. Therefore, the presence of sin in creation works to the glory of God in that way.

We are also told that the expression of God's wrath reveals God's power, and glorifies God in that way. This would be another way the presence of sin glorifies God. (Romans 9)

I'd think that we can conclude from this that the overarching purpose for God allowing sin is to glorify himself, both in the saving of sinners and the expression of his wrath against sin.

There may be other reasons, but I'm not going to speculate where I'm not told. Can you come up with scripture to support your reason?

God already knew the ends He wanted -- a heaven full of agreeable children!

That's part of the ends, since one of the purposes for redemption was to produce a holy people. But I'm pretty sure that's not the ultimate end, since the production of a holy people in glory is to "show the immeasurable riches of his grace." Once again, we get back ultimately to glorifying God—showing how rich his grace is—as the purpose for the presence of sin in creation.

He would have got a full heaven by barring Adam from the tree but it would have been the same thing as by "electing" them there (of "predestining" them there) -- basically they would be "untested."

Scripture?

Calvinists often call it "permissive will."

Usually, permissive will is not a term Calvinists use. It's more commonly used by noncalvinists, although most Calvinists do believe that God works some things by permission, but they include those things under the term sovereign will.

This is nothing more than saying the God has given someone else limited or all sovereignty over the situation.

There is no such thing as limited sovereignty. The term limited sovereignty is contradictory! Something can't be the highest authority over something and have limited authority over it at the same time. If it's limited authority, then you can use the word sovereignty in regards to it. Perhaps you mean limited authority instead, and if that's the case, then almost no one would disagree that God gives people limited authority, but their authority is always limited because the highest authority, the Sovereign, is always God.

Take Job for instance. God gave Satan "limited" sovereignty over Job's life.

God gave Satan limited authority over Job's life.

God Satan could do anything except kill Job.

Yes, but God's control over what Satan actually did was so precise that Job could say "God takes away" and be telling the truth. Therefore, it was God who was sovereign over what Satan did.

So now you have the clash of Satan's and Job's sovereignties -- Satan trying to get Job to curse God and die, and Job choosing to seek out the God he knows is his strength (those two - death or life - were within Job's personal and sovereign choices, right?).

Satan and Job made real choices, but they weren't the highest authority (sovereign) over any of their choice. They can't be, as long as God is a God who knows and a God who plans, and a God who can do.

Thus, God's decision was to remit some sovereignty to both Satan and Job -- which is something He has also given to you and me, BTW.

God can't "remit some sovereignty." If he remitted sovereignty over something, he would not longer be the highest authority over it, so he would no longer be God over it, and thus he would no longer be God.

 

[Humblesmith]

That's good :thumbs:

But my question really is, do we stop reading Calvin, too??

skypair

Actually, as a non-5 pointer, I've found Mr. Calvin to be much better than his followers that bear his name.

 

[Rippon]

Let's get back to dealing with SP's idea of a semi-sovereign god . Russell made some excellent points against SP's view .

 

[skypair]

Let's get back to dealing with SP's idea of a semi-sovereign god . Russell made some excellent points against SP's view .

I look forward to his reply. I think russ is "one of the sharper knives in the drawer" and he always gets me thinking. :thumbs:

skypair

 

[skypair]

Secondly, of course it glorifies God to punish sinners. It proves that he is righteous/just. All God's attributes are good, and showing himself for all that he is glorifies him.

So it naturally follows that when YOU raise a bunch of children that grow up to be infidels and traitors, that YOU too are glorified. No -- who does 2Thes 1:10 say that Jesus will be glorified in? His SAINTS, right?

I don't understand much of this statement. God is good to all, but he cannot do good indefinitely to all, because in the end, justice must be served.

Sproul's next remarks (after claiming that God is responsible for evil) was to say, "Well, we can look at it this way... there's good evil and evil good and good good and evil evil." That doesn't help since there is still evil evil the God is responsible for -- that, in His total and complete sovereignty, He "willed."

Well, I certainly don't agree with your view. Romans 3 tells us that Jesus had to be crucified publicly because God had already passed over sin in Old Testament time. Jesus had to die because God is righteous. There was only one right outcome: Jesus had to be crucified.

Yes, but just as with Pharoah, it could have happened through another "sovereignty" -- not via Israel bringing Him up on charges but say, by the Romans charges on account that Jesus WAS accepted as a rival king. In fact, accepting Jesus, it would be the Jews ushering in the kingdom of Christ and not us and maybe sooner!! So there's the allowance of sovereignty to mankind in a nutshell.

What Scripture says is that is that they did what they did "according to the definite plan of God" and that they did "whatever God's hand and God's plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 2 and 4)

It is interesting that despite the fact that God foreknew AND foreplanned it all, that Christ came offering His kingdom to Israel anyway and that all OT prophecy could have fallen out similarly if they had, indeed, accepted Him! I mean, right up to "...but He shall be cut off but not for Himself..." could have been construed to be the Gentiles if things had gone the other way.

We know that in this case, they weren't the highest authority (or sovereign) over their own decisions because they decided what they decided according to the definite plan of God. And that's as plain as the writing in scripture.

I don't know if you believe in the promises of God, but God promised to offer them Messiah, David's son. God said that they, Israel, would be a blessing to the Gentiles. That program is on hold right now on account of Israel rejecting Him despite God's will and intentions! We wouldn't even be talking "church age" (and they certainly weren't in the OT) if they had done God's will. There was never a OT scripture saying "you will kill Messiah."

That God is sovereign over a choice means that he is the ultimate authority over it.

And I agree -- so does Sproul apparently because he says God can make good out of evil (He controls "outcomes" as I said). But to say He has ultimate responsibilty for our or Adam's choice is the issue -- and no, He isn't responsible for you not choosing Christ nor for Adam eating the fruit! But does He have authority over what He will do about it? Absolutely!!

That is the literal definition of sovereignty: Supremacy of authority or rule. God is the supreme authority even over a choice that he allows because by choosing to allow it instead of prevent it, he ensure that it will take place.

Which definition also lets us make choices and God "overrules" them, right? But He won't overrule His own promises, right? See, there you go admitting that God "allows" others to be sovereign and then trying to deny it in the same breath!

What? God isn't powerful enough to make people come?

If a person wills not to come, obviously He is NOT powerful enough as He has "allowed" them to make that decision for themselves.

If God chooses to allow evil, then it's presence isn't outside of God's will.

Ah, now you are getting away from the original point. We were talking about Sproul's idea that God willed evil because God is the reason Adam sinned. Don't forget, we started with a "good" everything creation. And no, it was not God's will that Adam sin or He wouldn't have told him not to eat the forbidden fruit. God DID allow that He would though because He made Adam an independent being having a FREE self-will like God Himself had.

There's more evidence that God willed evil by looking at Eve, BTW. There had to be someone "dingy" enough and beautiful enough to cause Adam to sin willingly! But that's another whole thread having nothing to do with God being responsible for evil. :laugh:

No, they are humble. They are admitting that is unwise for mere humans to speak dogmatically about things that have not been revealed to us.
You have no idea why Sproul (or I) overlook what you think is "an obvious truth." You would do well to accept the motive given to you--that we do not want to speak where scripture doesn't.

Humble? I hardly consider it humble to then go on and say "and nobody else knows either." Here's what it truly is, russ --- false Calvinist humility that I see all the time when a Calvinist (mostly Sproul) doesn't have the answer and won't acknowledge the truth he has rejected in claiming to be ignorant. At least in this case, he mentions some options which he poorly dismisses.

Scripture?

Scripture?

You know the stories. Fact is, I find it mildly ridiculous that Sproul doesn't even take into account Lucifer's fall as the origins of evil. Why do you suppose that is? I'd say it's because he would really have to admit free will if he considered that event! There was no negative command to violate -- no obvious purpose of God in his fall -- nothing but an angelic being thinking in a way that was self-serving and against God.

[/B] No one, least of all Sproul or I, doubts that Lucifer or Adam chose not to serve God. What we won't say is exactly how independent that choice it. BECAUSE WE AREN'T TOLD! And creatures are creatures. They are dependent on their Creator and never independent of him.

Read Isa 14. Then come back and say that. Lucifer said "I" how many times?? And yet you can't find out why he chose not to serve God. I'd say Lucifer thought he was independent of God, wouldn't you? See, you're spouting this without any consideration of the scriptures, russ. In answering this comment, you only have consulted a) what you know about Calvinism and b) the comments I gave you from Sproul. That, apparently, is authoritative enough for you, no?

Quote from Sproul, please, saying that he rejects if because it casts a huge shadow over all of Calvinism.

That was me telling you the truth.

He foresaw it, yes, but on what basis did he foresee it? Did he foresee it because he planned it? Or does he "look down the corriders of time" and see it apart from his planning it?

The latter -- so that He can do the former.

Look I gotta go but I'll be back this morning, Lord willing. :wavey:

skypair

 

[russell55]

So it naturally follows that when YOU raise a bunch of children that grow up to be infidels and traitors, that YOU too are glorified.

Is it good for God to punish sin?

No -- who does 2Thes 1:10 say that Jesus will be glorified in? His SAINTS, right?

Yes, he is glorified in his saints. But why do you think that means God can't be glorified by judging sin as well? The final judgment glorifies God:

Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, because his judgments are true and just.

Sproul's next remarks (after claiming that God is responsible for evil) was to say, "Well, we can look at it this way... there's good evil and evil good and good good and evil evil." That doesn't help since there is still evil evil the God is responsible for -- that, in His total and complete sovereignty, He "willed."

We can't discuss what Sproul said because you can't give quotes in context.

Yes, but just as with Pharoah, it could have happened through another "sovereignty" -- not via Israel bringing Him up on charges but say, by the Romans charges on account that Jesus WAS accepted as a rival king. In fact, accepting Jesus, it would be the Jews ushering in the kingdom of Christ and not us and maybe sooner!! So there's the allowance of sovereignty to mankind in a nutshell.

Perhaps there were other ways Christ could have died for us. We don't know. But there was only one way planned. We know that because Acts tells us that the peoples of Israel, in taking part in the crucifixion of Christ, did as God planned for them to do.

It is interesting that despite the fact that God foreknew AND foreplanned it all, that Christ came offering His kingdom to Israel anyway and that all OT prophecy could have fallen out similarly if they had, indeed, accepted Him! I mean, right up to "...but He shall be cut off but not for Himself..." could have been construed to be the Gentiles if things had gone the other way.

Yes, he offered it to Israel, but he planned for them to reject it. We know that because the peoples of Israel, in taking part in the crucifixion of Christ, did as God planned for them to do.

I don't know if you believe in the promises of God,

Ooh... a very snide remark.

but God promised to offer them Messiah, David's son.

And he kept that promise.

God said that they, Israel, would be a blessing to the Gentiles.

And they blessed the gentiles by providing a Saviour for them. The Gentiles are blessed because the Lamb was slain, and by his blood he "ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation."

That program is on hold right now on account of Israel rejecting Him despite God's will and intentions!

They did not reject him despite God's will and intentions. They rejected him according to God's will and intentions, because Acts 4 tells us that in the crucifixion, the peoples of Israel did what God willed and intended for them to do.

We wouldn't even be talking "church age" (and they certainly weren't in the OT) if they had done God's will.

We have a "church age" because they did God's will. The peoples of Israel gathered together against God's holy servant Jesus to do whatever God's plan predestined them to do. (Acts 4)

There was never a OT scripture saying "you will kill Messiah."

Isaiah 53 says that the Messiah would be rejected by Israel and crushed for their sins according to the will of God. Acts 4 says that the people of Israel, in crucifying Christ, did what God planned for them to do.

He isn't responsible for you not choosing Christ nor for Adam eating the fruit!

Of course he isn't responsible for someone not choosing Christ of for Adam eating the fruit. No one says he is.

But does He have authority over what He will do about it? Absolutely!!

And he had authority over whether he would allow it or not. He had authority over whether he would put that tree in the garden at all knowing exactly what the consequences of it being there would be.

Which definition also lets us make choices and God "overrules" them, right?

Of course God lets people make choices. They make choices all the time. But if God overrules our choices, then he is sovereign over them because his rule over them is higher than our rule over them.

But He won't overrule His own promises, right?

He makes his own promises and keeps them.

See, there you go admitting that God "allows" others to be sovereign and then trying to deny it in the same breath!

Have you ever actually looked up the definition of sovereign? God can't allow others to be sovereign because God is always the highest authority over everything in the universe or he wouldn't be God. God let's people choose, but God is sovereign over their choices. He has to be because God is always the highest authority over everything in the universe. God is the highest rule over everything, therefore he is the sovereign over everything. It is impossible for him to to share sovereignty or give up sovereignty, by definition.

If a person wills not to come, obviously He is NOT powerful enough as He has "allowed" them to make that decision for themselves.

Huh? God is always powerful enough or he is not God. He has chosen not to use his power to bring them to himself.

Ah, now you are getting away from the original point. We were talking about Sproul's idea that God willed evil because God is the reason Adam sinned.

We can't talk about what Sproul said, because you haven't provided quotes in context.

And no, it was not God's will that Adam sin or He wouldn't have told him not to eat the forbidden fruit.

You are equivocating on the word will. You are using two definitions of the word in one sentence, but thinking of them as the same. God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit, yet God chose to allow him to do it knowing full well that by allowing Adam to do it, Adam surely would do it. So in the sense of God's will of command, it wasn't God's will that Adam sin. But in the sense of God's will as his plan for history, it was God's will that Adam sin.

God DID allow that He would though because He made Adam an independent being having a FREE self-will like God Himself had.

Adam has free will, but he doesn't have free will exactly like God has. There can only be one truly independent being in the universe: the one who made and sustains all other beings and is the ultimate ruler over everything else.

Humble? I hardly consider it humble to then go on and say "and nobody else knows either." Here's what it truly is, russ --- false Calvinist humility that I see all the time when a Calvinist (mostly Sproul) doesn't have the answer and won't acknowledge the truth he has rejected in claiming to be ignorant. At least in this case, he mentions some options which he poorly dismisses.

Because you can't give quotes from Sproul, I can't comment. But it is not false humility to admit that we can't know the mind of God, so we can't have all the answers. We can't know for sure that something is true unless it has been revealed to us in some way. You've not given scripture to prove your view of the origin of evil, and until you do, it's not false humility to dismiss it.

You know the stories. Fact is, I find it mildly ridiculous that Sproul doesn't even take into account Lucifer's fall as the origins of evil.

Why do you suppose that is?

Lucifer's fall can't be the ultimate origin of evil, because God had to foresee it and chose to allow it before it happened. In other words, the thought of evil and a choice in regards to it existed in God's mind before it existed in Lucifer's mind. Everything that now exists has to come back ultimately to God's mind planning creation.

If you have Lucifer's fall as the ultimate cause of evil, then what you have is a dualistic system, not a Christian one. And what you have is not a sovereign God, but one who does not rule over the forces of darkness.

I don't know why Sproul dismissed Lucifer's fall as the ultimate origin of evil, but that's the reason I do.

I'd say it's because he would really have to admit free will if he considered that event!

And you don't know that, you can't know that, because Sproul hasn't told you. Unless, of course, you can see into people's hearts. Then by all means, enlighten us.

There was no negative command to violate

We don't know that because we aren't told.

-- no obvious purpose of God in his fall --

There may be no obvious purpose of God in his fall, but there was obviously a purpose of God in his fall.

God foresaw it and chose to allow it for a reason, because God knows, God decides, and God is reasonable.

Read Isa 14. Then come back and say that. Lucifer said "I" how many times?? And yet you can't find out why he chose not to serve God. I'd say Lucifer thought he was independent of God, wouldn't you?

I know something about Lucifer's motives in chosing not to serve God. What I don't know for sure is the whole story, particularly in regards to the origin of the motives in Lucifer's heart.

And of course Lucifer thought he was independent of God. And he was decieved. Lucifer cannot be independent of God or else you have a dualistic system.

See, you're spouting this without any consideration of the scriptures, russ.

Huh? I'm the one that has been considering scripture. You, on the other hand, seem to be taking Satan at his word.

 

[russell55]

In answering this comment, you only have consulted a) what you know about Calvinism and b) the comments I gave you from Sproul. That, apparently, is authoritative enough for you, no?

Did you even read my comment? I've based my argument on

• several referrences to scripture.
• the nature of God as revealed in scripture.

On the other hand, I have not referred to

• Calvinism
• Any comment you gave from Sproul. You haven't even quoted from Sproul, so I don't know how I could have consulted the comments by him.

That was me telling you the truth.

Unless Sproul gave that as his motive, and I highly doubt that he did, that was you guessing what someone's motives might be. Unless, of course, you have the ability to see into people's hearts and read their motives.

The latter -- so that He can do the former.

Impossible. How can God foresee the presence of sin apart from his planning of it so that he can forsee the presence of sin because of his planning of it. You can't have the same thing based in something and also apart from it. That's contradictory, and thus nonsensical.

Look I gotta go but I'll be back this morning, Lord willing.

I won't be back. I've reached my limit. Not because you don't agree with me—I expect that. But I've grown impatient with your impugning of motives, both mine and Sproul's.

Moreover, with even a casual reading of what I've written, you would have seen the referrences to scripture there, and yet you accused me of not consulting scripture. I can only conclude that you really aren't even reading my posts, and they take me way too much time to keep doing them when the person I'm responding to isn't even noticing what's in them.

 

[skypair]

[/B] No one, least of all Sproul or I, doubts that Lucifer or Adam chose not to serve God. What we won't say is exactly how independent that choice it. BECAUSE WE AREN'T TOLD! And creatures are creatures. They are dependent on their Creator and never independent of him.

AREN'T TOLD ... or either would rather ignore the obvious. :laugh: What was it in Lucifer that you see? "I... I... I... I..." "I will" vs. I AM.

See, even in your scheme, evil has a good purpose, right? It ultimately works to a good end, right?

Oh, absolutely! And God WILL be completely sovereign in eternity --- everyone doing His will, not their own. Or likely His "ggeneral" will in a manner that glorifies Him.

Under any scenario where God is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing he could have kept them from sinning. But he chose not to.

I beg to differ. How could God create beings like Himself and them not have their own sovereignty? I mean, that is precisely the point, isn't it? Otherwise they are mere puppets, robots, automatons. When David said and Jesus repeated "ye are gods," what do YOU think He meant? Wasn't it that man, like God, has his own will?

Could he have created Adam and Eve as already glorified human beings, like all believers will be in glory, always loving God perfectly and never choosing to sin?

No, Lucifer was of such creation Like you said, He could have kept them away from the "water cooler" 24/7/365 but that wouldn't mean that their individuality wouldn't have fallen more along the lines of Lucifer's fall. The fact of the serpent/Satan really just points us back to where sin came from -- "the pride of life" as Paul called it.

I've never seen a passage that says that ["confirmed positive disposition"]. Do you have one in mind? If so, then I'll add that to my list of reasons God allows evil.

That's "dispensationalist speak" for Gen 2:15-17, 24. :laugh: "Confirming positive disposition"/behavior would be NOT eating the fruit -- obedience. That is the same "test" today and in every era whatever way you care to divide history. I just happen to do it dispensationally. (BTW, I recommend There Really Is A Difference by Renald Showers for a fuller and better explanation (or we can go through it step-by-step if you can't afford the book).

I do know that we are told that God saves people from sin in order to glorify himself, and we are told that several times. (Ephesians 1 and 2, in particular.)

Absolutely!

In order for God to save people from sin, sin has to be present in creation.

OR man might have glorified God by obedience and trust, right? Like the angels did the who knows how long -- and many still do!

But yeah -- over time there was going to be a "slip" because 1) people were created to make choices AND 2) with authority/sovereignty comes responsibility. Lucifer had authority over the angels -- Adam over creation -- just imagine multiple authorities over the same "turf!"

Therefore, the presence of sin in creation works to the glory of God in that way.

Yes, but God didn't will for it to be that way -- nor "that any should perish."

We are also told that the expression of God's wrath reveals God's power, and glorifies God in that way. This would be another way the presence of sin glorifies God. (Romans 9)

Actually, no. Jesus said the Pharisees glorified their father the devil. Only as we have been agreeing all along does it ultimately glorify God -- but don't confuse that with His will. Why if His will is to be glorified and He is totally sovereign would He EVER allow Satan to be glorified??

I'd think that we can conclude from this that the overarching purpose for God allowing sin is to glorify himself, both in the saving of sinners and the expression of his wrath against sin.

But see there -- you are now using my terminology or meaning when you say "allowing" sin. "Allowing" is letting someone else do what you DON'T will if they so will to do that.

There may be other reasons, but I'm not going to speculate where I'm not told. Can you come up with scripture to support your reason?

It goes back to what I believe about salvation -- that we are "tested" here and must choose --- God or self. We cannot do as the Pharisees thought to do and show up saying "But didn't we do what you told us to do?" That's sanctification. We're talking now about what comes before that -- a "tested positive disposition" toward God which is the basis for justification and eternal life. Justification is, a positive, decisive, personal change of heart called "belief" for which God rewards us with faith (as I understand the basis for my salvation). It's NOT a "discovery" one day or over time that "Hey everybody, I'm 'elect!'" Anything that is discovered over time is sanctification because we our souls are saved immediately (justification), our spirits are saved progressively (sanctification but ONLY IF WE ARE ALREADY JUSTIFIED), and our bodies are saved eventually (glorifed).

Usually, permissive will is not a term Calvinists use. It's more commonly used by noncalvinists, although most Calvinists do believe that God works some things by permission, but they include those things under the term sovereign will.

There is no such thing as limited sovereignty. The term limited sovereignty is contradictory!

What do you call it when you let your wife do the dishes in your household? I call that giving her limited sovereignty and I call what you have left as limited sovereignty. It's not that the dishes don't get done -- it's that you don't feel like you have to do them nor directly supervise her doing them. All you care is that they get done -- and you might have to do them tomorrow, Mother's Day! :laugh:

Perhaps you mean limited authority instead, and if that's the case, then almost no one would disagree that God gives people limited authority, but their authority is always limited because the highest authority, the Sovereign, is always God.

Sure, that's cool. Authority is sovereignty but this might get you into uncharted waters if you didn't see them as the same before.

God gave Satan limited authority over Job's life.

Exactly!

Yes, but God's control over what Satan actually did was so precise that Job could say "God takes away" and be telling the truth. Therefore, it was God who was sovereign over what Satan did.

Remember, God WAS sovereign in that He put limits on Satan's actions but He obivously "allowed" Satan to do what WASN'T God's own will. Allowing is not the same as willing, right?

Satan and Job made real choices, but they weren't the highest authority (sovereign) over any of their choice. They can't be, as long as God is a God who knows and a God who plans, and a God who can do.

This is where Calvinists often get "tripped up," I'm afraid. They equate "potential power" with "actual exercise of power." God can heal any disease He wants to. To question why He doesn't is no reflection on His ability nor on His will nor of His sovereignty.

Instance: have you heard of sin unto death? It is sin that eventually causes death -- like defiling your "temple" by smoking. Obviously (or especially) as a Christian, God has the power and ability to help you quit before it is a sin unto death (as He did in my case but not my mom's). But try as He may, He does not allow Himself to overcome your will. In both cases I cite (me and mom), God "intervened" powerfully but in the end, it is up to your own sovereignty, your own "control" ("as your faith is, so let it be unto you" Jesus said once, didn't He?), in the end.

God can't "remit some sovereignty." If he remitted sovereignty over something, he would not longer be the highest authority over it, so he would no longer be God over it, and thus he would no longer be God.

Now com'on. Are you "head of household" or a business or been a baby sitter?? YOU were given authority or you have given authority to others to "do in your place" and still taken the glory or blame, haven't you? Sovereignty does NOT mean "minute control" -- "micromanagement," if you will.

skypair

 

[johnp.]

Hello skypair.

And God WILL be completely sovereign in eternity --- everyone doing His will, not their own.

Your will be done on earth has it is done in heaven now and forever more.

We must ask Him not to lead us into temptation. If one does not believe He does this then one should not obey Christ's teaching because that is heresy.

..."ye are gods," what do YOU think He meant? Wasn't it that man, like God, has his own will?

If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--... John 10:35.
He called them God's to whom the word came, not 'all' men. ...He has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. 1 Peter 1:3.

All men do not participate in the divine nature. We are gods, it runs in the family.

Yes, but God didn't will for it to be that way -- nor "that any should perish."

Strange way to behave, creating people He doesn't want perish just to send them to Hell isn't it?

Instance: have you heard of sin unto death? It is sin that eventually causes death -- like defiling your "temple" by smoking.

1CO 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
Rather than smoking being the sin against the Holy Spirit it isn't even regarded as a sin against the Temple.

God can't "remit some sovereignty." If he remitted sovereignty over something, he would not longer be the highest authority over it, so he would no longer be God over it, and thus he would no longer be God. (russell.)

First skypair compares man with God and secondly continues in his illogicality with the statement that God can give sovereignty away and remain Sovereign.

john.

 

[russell55]

Authority is sovereignty

Not by any dictionary I've looked it up in. It means "supreme authority." You've left out a very important part of the definition. There can only be one supreme authority.

And biblically, we are told that there can only be one with sovereignty:

• God is the "Lord of lords", which means he's the supreme Lord over other lords: the Sovereign Lord.
• God is the "King of kings", which means he's the supreme King over other kings: the Sovereign King.
• God is the "only Sovereign", which means he's the only one to which the term sovereignty can rightly be applied. God's sovereignty cannot be delegated, shared, limited, remitted, because he's the only Sovereign.

1 Timothy 6:15:

. . .he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords . . .