The origin of evil and the decrees of God

I'm not asking you to explain it again. Believe it or not, I understand what you are arguing. I just disagree with it as do Arminians, which is why I know Edwards disagrees with it too.

On one hand you say you are in agreement with Compatabalism and on the other you say you are in agreement with Arminians and Edwards? Do they agree on this point, and where do they teach this particular point?

And why do you appeal to mystery regarding the origin of evil, when you believe that "its not evil" when God does it? Why not just say God authored evil, but for a good motive so its not evil?

You keep avoiding that question Luke and the strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

I understand that, but from what I've studied they are arguing in regard to the motive behind what God has permissively decreed to necessarily come to pass in order to accomplish His own Sovereign purposes. They are not arguing in defense of things God has actively done, but for good motives. You are not clear in that distinction.

I have acknowledged that IT refers to the "DEED" over and over. But IT is a DEED that would be seen as EVIL and you speak of IT in regard to EVERY DEED, even those heinous ones in the context of Dahmer. So, if we apply your own arguments regarding my questions about Dahmer, you would say "Satan did IT - but also God did IT." or "Dahmer did IT, but also God did IT"

What is IT in this scenario, Luke? Sin. Molestation, rape, murder and cannibalism. So, you are saying when Dahmer did IT he did IT with evil intent so its sin, but you go on to say God did IT too!!! Which is absurd and completely unbiblical and NO CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR worth his salt teaches that. God didn't do that deed. He permitted it for his purpose so that it would certainly come to pass according to his divine foreknowledge and permissive decree, but he didn't "DO IT WITH A PURE MOTIVE." Maybe you mean he allowed it for a PURE motive, which is what I read Compatibilist teaching, but I don't hear them saying God "DID IT" with a pure motive.

Is that why you have several other Calvinists on this BB who continually take issue with your views (or at least your choice of words)? I suppose they just don't understand Calvinism either, huh?

I guess only you really understand it, right?

Again, for God to permit something is often seen as his doing, because He has the ability to prevent it but doesn't. That does NOT mean God actively or does it. This is why clarity is needed in your use of terms. Satan did the evil to Job, but because Job recognized that God permitted it he questions Him as if He is the one who has afflicted him. Calvinists and Arminians alike defend God's sovereignty in his allowing moral evil, but they don't typically do so with the understanding that God is actively "doing it," but instead that He is "allowing it for a purpose" even-though He could have stopped it. You do understand that both of those views need a defense (called a "Theodicy," as you acknowledged). I believe Edwards and the Arminian theodicy is typically very similar, but yours seems to go further for the reasons described above.

So it would be better to make a statement without defining or specifying my terms as you have? That would make it less vague???

Why is that wrong, Luke? Do I need to go dig up your quotes that say you are in agreement with Edwards (and the "Arminian divines") and then your quotes which say you are in agreement with "Compatabalism?"

You claim to be agreement with both, so what did I say that is wrong here?

 

I'd like to add to that list:

- God has sent man an appeal to be reconciled to Him.
- God has sent his Bride, the church, to proclaim that appeal to every creature.
- God sent apostles.
- God inspired, preserved and dispersed the scriptures
- God indwells his messengers and compels them to go and preach.

Needless to say, man is not left "to his own devices."