"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

[Skandelon]

Gen. 3:22: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." - God

What I still want to know that, no Calvinist here or anywhere, in my experience, has sufficiently answered, is why anything is considered truly evil in the Calvinistic account of God and creation? If everything is planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, including sin and evil; then why not praise and even credit God for good and evil alike? They are, after all, his unchangeable will and necessary for his full glorification, right? So, what is the distinction between that which is good and that which is evil?

Often Calvinists argue that God’s goodness is different from ours. Then, how do we know it, as Gen. 3:22 says we will.... and what prevents the word 'good' from becoming meaningless? How does it differ from “gobbeldygook?” If it has no real connection to any meaning of “good” in our experience, how is it meaningful?

And how does the Calvinistic definition of evil fit with their understanding of God's holiness? How separate from evil can God be in a system where he equally decrees all things that come to pass?

Discuss...

 

[OldRegular]

I can't speak for Calvinists but I can say what Scripture says how those who love God are to view evil.

Psalms 97:10. Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 8:13. The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.


Perhaps if you understood the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace you would present more appropriate threads!

 

[Skandelon]

I can't speak for Calvinists

Then don't.

Perhaps if you understood the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace you would present more appropriate threads!

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition...it states:

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."​

 

[OldRegular]

Then don't.

I don't! They can speak for themselves!

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition...it states:

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."​

You really need to post the complete statement!

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

I assume sin and evil are closer than kissin cousins! You know, brother and sister, identical twins, one and the same!

 

[kyredneck]

You really need to post the complete statement!

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

REALLY!

Thank you for that OR!

 

[Benjamin]

You really need to post the complete statement!

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Which amounts to nothing more than a confession in the belief of Compatibilism (trying to have it both ways). Read my signature...

 

[Cypress]

Which amounts to nothing more than a confession in the belief of Compatibilism (trying to have it both ways). Read my signature...

Yes, Benjamin...........it's magic!:thumbs:

 

[HankD]

Gen. 3:22: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." - God

What I still want to know that, no Calvinist here or anywhere, in my experience, has sufficiently answered, is why anything is considered truly evil in the Calvinistic account of God and creation? If everything is planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, including sin and evil; then why not praise and even credit God for good and evil alike? They are, after all, his unchangeable will and necessary for his full glorification, right? So, what is the distinction between that which is good and that which is evil?

Often Calvinists argue that God’s goodness is different from ours. Then, how do we know it, as Gen. 3:22 says we will.... and what prevents the word 'good' from becoming meaningless? How does it differ from “gobbeldygook?” If it has no real connection to any meaning of “good” in our experience, how is it meaningful?

And how does the Calvinistic definition of evil fit with their understanding of God's holiness? How separate from evil can God be in a system where he equally decrees all things that come to pass?

Discuss...

I'm not 100% certain of your point but I'll offer this:

Lets say you go out to dinner with your family.
When you come home you find your home ransacked and many of your possessions stolen.

You have experienced evil in the manner in which God has experienced it.

True, God created the venue and opportunity for sin to occur but He Himself is incapable of it.

Some say it is for the sake of free will.
Not sure but it probably is more that just that alone.

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

I am no calvinist.

HankD

 

[Aaron]

Gen. 3:22: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." - God

What I still want to know that, no Calvinist here or anywhere, in my experience, has sufficiently answered, is why anything is considered truly evil in the Calvinistic account of God and creation? If everything is planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, including sin and evil; then why not praise and even credit God for good and evil alike? They are, after all, his unchangeable will and necessary for his full glorification, right? So, what is the distinction between that which is good and that which is evil?

Often Calvinists argue that God’s goodness is different from ours. Then, how do we know it, as Gen. 3:22 says we will.... and what prevents the word 'good' from becoming meaningless? How does it differ from “gobbeldygook?” If it has no real connection to any meaning of “good” in our experience, how is it meaningful?

And how does the Calvinistic definition of evil fit with their understanding of God's holiness? How separate from evil can God be in a system where he equally decrees all things that come to pass?

Discuss...

Here we go again. Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?

Ever and anon this is the whole objection to Calvinism.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Gen. 3:22: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." - God

What I still want to know that, no Calvinist here or anywhere, in my experience, has sufficiently answered, is why anything is considered truly evil in the Calvinistic account of God and creation? If everything is planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, including sin and evil; then why not praise and even credit God for good and evil alike? They are, after all, his unchangeable will and necessary for his full glorification, right? So, what is the distinction between that which is good and that which is evil?

Often Calvinists argue that God’s goodness is different from ours. Then, how do we know it, as Gen. 3:22 says we will.... and what prevents the word 'good' from becoming meaningless? How does it differ from “gobbeldygook?” If it has no real connection to any meaning of “good” in our experience, how is it meaningful?

And how does the Calvinistic definition of evil fit with their understanding of God's holiness? How separate from evil can God be in a system where he equally decrees all things that come to pass?

Discuss...

Decree, ordain, allow. Which one is it? I have heard all three. Is allowing the same thing as decreeing? I am so confused. If I allow my son to use my car and he gets in a race and loses his license for reckless driving, am I to blame? Did I decree it, allow it, or ordain it? Neither. I allowed him to drive my car. He knew the limitations, but choose to ignore them. I see man's sin the same way.

 

[Van]

The answer is Calvinism has no answer. They simply assert the logical impossibility that God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass including our choice to sin, yet God is not the author of that sin. Hangs together nicely. Another feeble-minded effort is to say because we freely choose to sin, i.e. sin this way and not that way, even though we have no choice not to choose to sin, makes us responsible for our sin.

And anyone who points out the King has no clothes is charged with ignorance, malice and hate. And the beat goes on.

 

[Skandelon]

Decree, ordain, allow. Which one is it? I have heard all three. Is allowing the same thing as decreeing? I am so confused. If I allow my son to use my car and he gets in a race and loses his license for reckless driving, am I to blame? Did I decree it, allow it, or ordain it? Neither. I allowed him to drive my car. He knew the limitations, but choose to ignore them. I see man's sin the same way.

All good questions and the answer depends on what type of Calvinist you happen to be engaging. Some of the more moderate Calvinists will say "allow," but others more bound to the logic of their system and defense of their view of 'sovereignty' will say 'decree' (as in planning or controlling the circumstances such as to ensure it certainly comes to pass).

Others, like Aaron, quote verses out of context and refuse to engage the actual debate.

 

[Skandelon]

The answer is Calvinism has no answer. They simply assert the logical impossibility that God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass including our choice to sin, yet God is not the author of that sin. Hangs together nicely.

Exactly. It's tantamount to saying, "God does it, but it's not his fault for doing it." (which is almost verbatim what some have argued for here in the past....i.e. Luke)

 

[Skandelon]

Which amounts to nothing more than a confession in the belief of Compatibilism (trying to have it both ways). Read my signature...

:thumbs: Compatibilism reduces human volition to animal instinct. Claiming that mankind is free because he is "choosing according to his desire" is senseless in a worldview where God decrees even the desires of man. There is NO sense of independence or autonomy on which to base human responsibility or to avoid divine culpability.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Here we go again. Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?

Ever and anon this is the whole objection to Calvinism.

Absolutely...."Here we go, agan".... God both Hates "Evil" (given Calvinism), and "Evil" is also his own Divine will....This is absurdity. Ever and anon.....I think this is your only defense of it....and it isn't even a defense...and it rings hollow. It makes no sense. And "Ever and anon"...the "objection"...is that "Calvinism" is logically absurd.......But God insists that you believe absurdity anyway. Your philosophy thus far, must be accepted by accepting the premises that:

1.) God does nothing but good
2.) God does Evil
3.) This isn't absurd

Therefore:

Calvinism is true

Find a new level of argumentation....it won't work anymore..."ever and anon" Calvinism is absurd, and most who preach it speak with forked tongues....You are too smart to buy this anymore.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Is Calvinism unique to Baptist? Sorry for the sideline

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Decree, ordain, allow. Which one is it? I have heard all three. Is allowing the same thing as decreeing? I am so confused. If I allow my son to use my car and he gets in a race and loses his license for reckless driving, am I to blame?

Did I decree it, allow it, or ordain it?

Neither. I allowed him to drive my car. He knew the limitations, but choose to ignore them. I see man's sin the same way.

You have answered your own questions here. Bron, I think your question you ask here is self-evident:

Is allowing the same thing as decreeing?

No, but you already know this, I think. It isn't.

If I allow my son to use my car and he gets in a race and loses his license for reckless driving, am I to blame?

No, you absolutely aren't. But I think you already know this. This isn't a secret and esoteric doctrine, only known to those "privy" to some "secrets" of the gospel...I bolded the operative word for you.

allow

Just be confident with your own sense of reason. God gave you that sense of reason, and only according to his own purposes and in his own omnipotent power and eternal decree. Don't second-guess what God has given you. That is insulting to him.

"Decree"...not really, "Allow", Yes, and un-equivocally...."Ordain", is relative to how you understand the nature of the two words already stated. To "ordain" is really, I think, an amalgam of how you understand what "Decree" and "Allow" mean. God..."ordains" based upon those two things.

 

[Yeshua1]

Gen. 3:22: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." - God

What I still want to know that, no Calvinist here or anywhere, in my experience, has sufficiently answered, is why anything is considered truly evil in the Calvinistic account of God and creation? If everything is planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, including sin and evil; then why not praise and even credit God for good and evil alike? They are, after all, his unchangeable will and necessary for his full glorification, right? So, what is the distinction between that which is good and that which is evil?

Often Calvinists argue that God’s goodness is different from ours. Then, how do we know it, as Gen. 3:22 says we will.... and what prevents the word 'good' from becoming meaningless? How does it differ from “gobbeldygook?” If it has no real connection to any meaning of “good” in our experience, how is it meaningful?

And how does the Calvinistic definition of evil fit with their understanding of God's holiness? How separate from evil can God be in a system where he equally decrees all things that come to pass?

Discuss...

WHATEVER the Lord does is alway perfect/right/just, do you agree?

We also know NOTHING happens that is outside of His control over it, so wether He did it directly or permitted it to come to pass, isn;t the same result?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

WHATEVER the Lord does is alway perfect/right/just, do you agree?

We also know NOTHING happens that is outside of His control over it, so wether He did it directly or permitted it to come to pass, isn;t the same result?

NO, it isn't the same "result". What you are suggesting is called an "argument from consequences"...and it is fallacious. Yes, the "result" is the same, sure...but you are using the result or the conclusion in order to justify what are otherwise un-supportable premises...Namely, the one you stated:

so wether He did it directly

THAT is the un-supportable one.....

But you are arguing that because the "conclusions" are the same that the premise:

permitted it to come to pass

Is equivocal....and they are not.

Either ONE or BOTH of them are actually FALSE...but that is not to say that both are either true or insignificant or equivocal...That would be false. But I am fully aware of the fact that I am ostensibly wasting my time.

 

[Yeshua1]

NO, it isn't the same "result". What you are suggesting is called an "argument from consequences"...and it is fallacious. Yes, the "result" is the same, sure...but you are using the result or the conclusion in order to justify what are otherwise un-supportable premises...Namely, the one you stated:


THAT is the un-supportable one.....

But you are arguing that because the "conclusions" are the same that the premise:



Is equivocal....and they are not.

Either ONE or BOTH of them are actually FALSE...but that is not to say that both are either true or insignificant or equivocal...That would be false. But I am fully aware of the fact that I am ostensibly wasting my time.

Actually, God had bulit into His decree that Adam would be permitted the free choice to blow it for him and for all following him!