The 'Greater Good' Philosophical Notion

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I believe it was Steaver (with DW saying he was in agreement with Steaver) that brought up the philosophical notion of the 'greater good.' Such philosophy has been around for centuries and is at the heart of Calvinistic doctrine, but who knows what they might mean by it. Would Steaver and or DW be so kind to as to tell us first what it means, and where did they ( I am asuming the both agree by DW's comment) arrive at such a philosophical notion???

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe it was Steaver (with DW saying he was in agreement with Steaver) that brought up the philosophical notion of the 'greater good.' Such philosophy has been around for centuries and is at the heart of Calvinistic doctrine, but who knows what they might mean by it. Would Steaver and or DW be so kind to as to tell us first what it means, and where did they ( I am asuming the both agree by DW's comment) arrive at such a philosophical notion???

Rom. 8:28 And we know [except HP] that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Eph. 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Psa 76:10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.

 

[billwald]

OK, but then it is for the greater good of the elect that the null state of the human race is "depraved" and the vast majority of the humans whom God creates end up in Hell?

 

[Dr. Walter]

OK, but then it is for the greater good of the elect that the null state of the human race is "depraved" and the vast majority of the humans whom God creates end up in Hell?

Rom. 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW, the verese you set forth prove or say what????

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW, the verese you set forth prove or say what????

The mean what they say and say what they mean:

1. If God is working "ALL THINGS" for good - that is ultimate good

Rom. 8:28 And we know [except HP] that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.


2. If God works "ALL THINGS after his counsel of His own Will" then it is for ultimate good:

Eph. 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:


3. If he restrains all wrath that will not praise him - then He is working all things for utlimate good.

Psa 76:10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.

You don't believe God will have victory over death, sin and hell in the end? You don't believe God is working all things for the ultiamate good of the saint? You don't believe that the justice of God against sinners is for the ultimate good of God's glory?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Forgive me for not taking the time to chronicle these comments at the start of this thread. It should serve to see what has been stated and the need of this thread to search them out.

Let back up for a moment to what started this thread. Steaver had made the following comments to which DW said he agreed with: Steaver: Yes, God predestined Adam to fall that all may be born with a curse. Steaver again: God did not "make" Adam sin, but God did set Adam up to fail…………God placed a forbidden fruit at the reach of Adam and gave Adam a command and a free-will choice to obey or sin. However, God knew in advance that Adam would indeed choose to sin if He gave Adam the chance……. Can Adam be the "first cause" for sin entering into the world if God placed a forbidden tree in his reach KNOWING FULL WELL Adam would fail??.... Didn't God caused Adam to fail simply by giving Adam a free-will and a choice, for God KNEW IN ADVANCE that by creating a man with a choice that the man would indeed choose sin??.... ( HP:And finally but certainly not least the following comment) And why did God cause Adam to fail? That Jesus Christ would be glorified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

HP: The following was the response by DW to Steaver’s comment:

DW: Brother, I would prefer to reword it by saying "And why did God PERMIT Adam to fail? That Jesus Christ would be glorified." Individual acts of Sin and evil are always by permission never by approval, unless of course, we are looking at the greater picture, then it is approval for the greater good.”

HP: It is this ‘greater picture’ of the ’greater good’ DW spoke about that sparked this thread. If what DW calls the greater picture is what one is looking at, he is telling us that indeed then individual acts of sin are indeed by God's approval. That is what DW needs to address. How, looking at the "greater picture" does God grant His "approval" of sin for the "greater good?"

My focus is to flesh out this ‘greater picture’ and the ’greater good’ DW speaks about so we can see what a Holy and Just God has granted by His approval of sin in order to facilitate what DW calls a “greater good.”

DW, define for us what you mean by the 'greater good' and just how God has given His approval of sin to promote this greater good.

 

[quantumfaith]

HP: I don't have any idea as to the meaning of "the greater good" but I am full agreement that the Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism, Historical Baptist, Sovereign Grace et. al. by logical conclusion is reduced back to God in some way being responsible for the entrance of sin into the world, and furthermore in Calvinism proper, by default God does indeed elect multitudes to everlasting torment even before they are born.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let back up for a moment to what started this thread. Steaver had made the following comments to which DW said he agreed with: Steaver: Yes, God predestined Adam to fall that all may be born with a curse.

Get your facts right! I did not agree with this statement by Steaver but corrected it. I said God "permitted" or "allowed" not "caused" Adam to sin. In fact, I have denied that idea in every post I have ever submitted on this forum.

So your whole foundation crumbles with this distortion of facts.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: "And why did God PERMIT Adam to fail? That Jesus Christ would be glorified." Individual acts of Sin and evil are always by permission never by approval, unless of course, we are looking at the greater picture, then it is approval for the greater good.”

HP: Paying close attention to this comment, I am drawn back to the comments of DW that God is also driven by compulsion. DW has went to great lengths to fixate the character of God into a stoic position that under no circumstances can or will change, a God whose ever notion is driven by the necessity of His nature and not in any way by the choices He makes.

Working from that position, that God is the product of compulsion and that without exception, I should be able to justly say also that whatever God does in the past will be precisely what He does in the future, for a nature driven by compulsion cannot have the slightest indication of a shadow of turning. Necessity drives compulsion period.

So here we have a compulsive God driven by His nature which we would all agree is Good. Unless you believe there are two eternal forces in the world and both have inhabited eternity from eternity past to eternity future, you would also have to understand that before evil existed, there was God and Holiness, Righteousness and Justice. (whatever those terms mean to one holding to a system of necessity) Now if evil and good are opposite terms, how could evil come into existence if Holy, Good, Just, God was driven by the compulsiveness of His ‘Good Nature????’ The only thing that can come forth by compulsion from a Good Nature is goodness. Maybe DW believes that evil has always coexisted by compulsion as well just as God has always existed and driven by eternal compulsion. Who knows??

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Also at stake is the notion that man was created in the image of God. If God is driven by compulsion, man in His image would of necessity have to be driven by compulsion as well. If not, one would have to envision a God driven in one direction only, i.e., Good, creating man with powers and abilities to choose which even He could not and did not possess. How can God create something by the compulsion of His nature that operates with powers He does not possess, something outside of His own nature and outside of the realm of compulsion to do 'only' good???? Think about it!!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Get your facts right! I did not agree with this statement by Steaver but corrected it. I said God "permitted" or "allowed" not "caused" Adam to sin. In fact, I have denied that idea in every post I have ever submitted on this forum.

HP: You most certainly did say you agreed with Steaver. After saying you agreed with him, you did say it in your own words but you NEVER rescinded your agreement with him, but rather implied he was correct in the 'greater picture' of things. Are you telling us now that Steaver was in error in his comments that I listed for us again????

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW, read post #39 in the thread Was Adam Elected to Salvation or Damnation? “ that you wrote after Steaver’s comments.

DW: I think Steaver is right! (HP: EM )

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW, read post #39 in the thread Was Adam Elected to Salvation or Damnation? “ that you wrote after Steaver’s comments.

DW: I think Steaver is right! (HP: EM )

Either you are giving the wrong post # or the wrong thread as I cannot find anything at that address.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

How are my facts now DW?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

My facts are straight. I can certainly find it precisely were I said it is. I simply quoted you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

How are my facts now DW?

Wrong! Here is what I said and the context makes it clear that I was not referring to the specific statement you identify it with:

I think Steaver is right! HP if you want to debate me concerning what I believe, what about starting with our own definitions before ascribing to us things we have not said or did not mean to be understood the way you are using things.

Let's ratchet down this discussion and begin by defining things and make sure we both understand each other.

I did not say "I think Steaver is right about God causing man to be cursed." I said he was right about what I go on to further elaborate in the next two sentences.

In regard to Steavers statement about God causing man to be cursed, I responded as follows:

Originally Posted by steaver

And why did God cause Adam to fail?

That Jesus Christ would be glorified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a perfect plan!!

DW: Brother, I would prefer to reword it by saying "And why did God PERMIT Adam to fail? That Jesus Christ would be glorified." Individual acts of Sin and evil are always by permission never by approval, unless of course, we are looking at the greater picture, then it is approval for the greater good.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Free will, or power of contrary choice is said to be a power men possess. Are we to believe that a God that is said to be Omnipotent does not possess the very powers He granted to man as a free moral agent. i.e., freewill or power of contrary choice?????

We know it is absurd to blame men for something they honestly have no power over, no ability to do anything other than what they do, due to the fact that necessity would be the driving force as opposed to their will. We only hold those responsible who indeed have a choice. If God is driven by compulsion and no contrary choice is ever possible, can God in reality be 'responsible' for anything He does????

 

[Dr. Walter]

Free will, or power of contrary choice is said to be a power men possess. Are we to believe that a God that is said to be Omnipotent does not possess the very powers He granted to man as a free moral agent. i.e., freewill or power of contrary choice?????

You have been unable to respond to the answer I gave you so why should I continue discussing this????

Your position requires God to have a MUTABLE nature of holiness. Since God's holiness is not MUTABLE but IMMUTABLE, He is not able to exercise contrary choice in regard to holiness - He cannot sin - He cannot lie - it is impossible - simply because His nature is not mutable. His own nature is controlled by holy and righteous thinking and desires which in turn control His own will. For His will to choose contrary choice to his nature, He would first have to have SINFUL desires and SINFUL thoughts in order to choose a SINFUL act! IMPOSSIBLE!

Likewise, fallen man has been confirmed in an IMMUTABLE unholy nature and nothing but an act of CREATION can change it. Man's nature is at "enmity with God" and "it is not subject to the law of God" and "neither indeed can be" - not possible. In order for fallen human nature to exercise contrary choice to his nature, he would first have to have righteous desires and righteous thinking in order to choose a righteous act! Impossible!!

What you don't understand is that in the case with God and man the will is nothing more than the servant of their MORAL nature and their freedom of choice lies within that MORAL nature not OUTSIDE of it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Brother, I would prefer to reword it by saying "And why did God PERMIT Adam to fail? That Jesus Christ would be glorified." Individual acts of Sin and evil are always by permission never by approval, unless of course, we are looking at the greater picture, then it is approval for the greater good.

HP: That is precisely what I pointed out above. My facts were straight. You NEVER stated you were in disagreement with his comment, for you said "I AGREE!!" You simply reworded it as you might say it and then still clearly implied you would say it like Steaver did IF the 'greater good' was the 'greater picture' being adressed. I believe any fair reader would have concluded that you indeed agreed with him but might reword it slightly differently ONLY IF the greater picture was NOT being addressed.

Now on the other hand, if you believe Steaver was wrong, including the possibility Steaver was looking at the greater picture, simply say so. :thumbs: