Problem of Evil (Sproul's version)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

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.

Adrift you mean?

john.

 

Suggestion: Stop reading Sproul. :thumbs:

 

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 .

 

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 .

 

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!

 

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Scripture?

Scripture?

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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?

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.

Scripture?

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! 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.

God gave Satan limited authority over Job's life.

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Is it good for God to punish sin?

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.

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

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.

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.

Ooh... a very snide remark.

And he kept that promise.

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."

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 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)

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.

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

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.

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.

He makes his own promises and keeps them.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

Hello skypair.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

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: