The origin of evil and the decrees of God

[quantumfaith]

& you guys just make me nuts with all this because bottom line, your not sure of anything. I like the KISS answers instead of endless jargon & speculation etc otherwise its just opinion. JD, I think ole Al Martin would take you in the back & have some serial conversation with you for using lapsarianism. Are we really going to say that God planned for you to get bit by a mosquito last Thursday night after the softball game? Really!?!

This is something I can definitely be confident about. In the case "non-empiricals" such as theology is boils down to two things, interpretation and most importantly FAITH.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I see your point brother, but are you suggesting the mosquito can act apart from God's decree, whether permissive or decretive?

I know it may seem insignificant, and frankly a mosquito is, but the concept of nothing happening apart from God's divine oversight (decree), is not. That is the very heart of true Sovereignty after all.

you will have to convince me.....by nature Im arrogant (had to throw that in...hehehe) & a skeptic. Plus Im a dumb Marine. speak s_l_o_w_l_y & don't use big words.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is something I can definitely be confident about. In the case "non-empiricals" such as theology is boils down to two things, interpretation and most importantly FAITH.

That theory extends pretty much to life. Dont Doctors & Lawyers "Practice" ....however Ive learned this little thing I will share with you Dave & that is, " Bedside manners is no substitute for the right diagnosis"

 

[Iconoclast]

I see your point brother, but are you suggesting the mosquito can act apart from God's decree, whether permissive or decretive?

I know it may seem insignificant, and frankly a mosquito is, but the concept of nothing happening apart from God's divine oversight (decree), is not. That is the very heart of true Sovereignty after all.

Skan
:thumbs::thumbs: correct....the mosquito might be carrying malaria...orsomething else

EWF.....has missed this a bit.....EWF

6And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.

7But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/wd_index.htm
EWF.... WR Downing listen to God and Worms ..... scroll down to it

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Skan
:thumbs::thumbs: correct....the mosquito might be carrying malaria...orsomething else

EWF.....has missed this a bit.....EWF

http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/wd_index.htm
EWF.... WR Downing listen to God and Worms ..... scroll down to it

Oh I got a better one.....Isaiah 45: 7 .
I form the light & create darkness. I bring prosperity & create disaster; I, the Lord do all these things.

Splain dat!

Icono....before I listen to him....who is he?

 

[Skandelon]

Skan
:thumbs::thumbs: correct....the mosquito might be carrying malaria...orsomething else

EWF.....has missed this a bit.....EWF

http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/wd_index.htm
EWF.... WR Downing listen to God and Worms ..... scroll down to it

I'd just add that I would see the average mosquito bite falling under God's permissive decree, while the worm seems to be a direct intervention of God's active agency in Jonah's life.

 

[JesusFan]

I, as a non-Calvinist, affirm that God has permissively decreed the origin of evil. By this I mean, as Edwards states, that "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his 'positive agency.'"

This means there are two separate and distinct decrees of God.

1. Permissive Decrees: those things which come to pass apart from God's positive agency or direct involvement (such as the sin of man). These are things He foreknows will certainly come to pass, but is not the one who brings them to pass by His effort, involvement, intervention or agency. He may not find pleasure in these things, but, nonetheless, allows them for a greater purpose.

2. Decretive Decrees: those things which come to pass as a direct result of God's positive agency or direct involvement (such as the incarnation of Jesus). These are things He foreknows will certainly come to pass, but not simply because he KNOWS of it beforehand, but instead because He has determined to bring it to pass by His effort, intervention and direct involvement.

Nothing can thwart a decree of God, whether permissive or decretive, because both are based in the certainty of God's omniscience. Thus, the affirmation of God decreeing all things to come to pass mustn't be understood as meaning that evil exists "because of God's decree." Instead, we must understand which decree is meant. This is why CLARITY on this subject is so vitally important.

Too often on this BB clarity is sacrificed for the sake of winning a point or sticking it to the opponent, but to what end? Is impugning the holiness of God, even unintentionally, in the effort to win a debate justified? Can we simply be clear with our use of terms when discussing such serious matters as God's holiness? Can we all agree to refrain from saying anything that could possibly be misinterpreted as blaming God for the sin and evil in this world?

Is that really too much to ask? Is that even a dividing point between Calvinistic and non-Calvinistis Baptists? I don't think so. I think is should be something on which we all agree, if we put down our axes and reason together as brethren.

Think that the Cals/Arms are really closer together than farther apart in area of Sotierology than one wouuld believe based upon various posters here on the BB!

At this point in time, believe that the Bible teaches us that indeed God has both a permissive and a determinent Will, and that in all things, whether caused/allowed, works all things out to His glory according to his divine Will and purposes!

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh I got a better one.....Isaiah 45: 7 .
I form the light & create darkness. I bring prosperity & create disaster; I, the Lord do all these things.

Splain dat!

Icono....before I listen to him....who is he?

EWF......Listen first...I guarentee if you stick with the whole sermon,it will be most helpful...He is a friend of Al Martin:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

I could not believe how he tied in so much in this sermon....this was a major wake up call...lol.. I think I had hair before i listened to this sermon,haha. i had to listen several times to pick up much I missed....I could not process it all in one sitting..you will see, enjoy![I am not sure if enjoy...is quite the right word.....it might be somewhat convicting]

 

[Skandelon]

Think that the Cals/Arms are really closer together than farther apart in area of Sotierology than one wouuld believe based upon various posters here on the BB!

At this point in time, believe that the Bible teaches us that indeed God has both a permissive and a determinent Will, and that in all things, whether caused/allowed, works all things out to His glory according to his divine Will and purposes!

:thumbs: I agree, which is why its frustrating when some here disagree about points that really shouldn't be points of contention. Much of the disagreement is a result of a lack of clarity and subsequent misunderstanding, IMO.

 

[Skandelon]

I think I had hair before i listened to this sermon,haha.

:laugh:

I was going to listen to it until you said that!!!

 

[Luke2427]

I, as a non-Calvinist, affirm that God has permissively decreed the origin of evil. By this I mean, as Edwards states, that "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his 'positive agency.'"

This means there are two separate and distinct decrees of God.

1. Permissive Decrees: those things which come to pass apart from God's positive agency or direct involvement (such as the sin of man). These are things He foreknows will certainly come to pass, but is not the one who brings them to pass by His effort, involvement, intervention or agency. He may not find pleasure in these things, but, nonetheless, allows them for a greater purpose.

Yes.

But what you have avoided is admitting that THOUGH God does not bring evil to pass by his positive agency- he planned and purposed that evil should exist.

God planned to build a world where he intended that men in that world should sin and go to hell.

What sets you and I apart from "non-cals", since you are more specifically an Arminian which means you have an orthodox and consistent theology is this:

You and I do not believe that God's eternal purposes can EVER be thwarted.

As some of the "non-cals" said themselves, they believe that God's purposes CAN and ARE thwarted all of the time.

So when a man sins, they do not see that as you and I do-

That God hates sin, and that God does not positively bring it to pass, but that God always intended for that sin to come to pass that God ordered the universe so that it would infallibly come to pass and that God always intended to use that sin for his own glory and that God purposed it for that reason before the world began.

But these people without a theology cannot fathom that. They think it means that God is the author of sin.

They say that God NEVER purposed for that man to commit that sin.

And when that man goes to hell, they do not see it as you and I do-
They think that man went to hell against the eternal purposes of God.

They think God NEVER intended, never purposed his damnation.

They think that man defied the eternal purposes of God.

Nothing can thwart a decree of God, whether permissive or decretive, because both are based in the certainty of God's omniscience.

This is insufficient.

They are not based ONLY on his omniscience.

They are based on his PURPOSES.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes.

But what you have avoided is admitting that THOUGH God does not bring evil to pass by his positive agency- he planned and purposed that evil should exist.

Can you clearly explain the distinction between (1) God not bringing evil to pass by his positive agency and (2) God planning and purposing that evil should exist.

I'm just trying to understand your distinction between these two concepts to see if we can find some common ground. Thank you.

 

[Iconoclast]

:laugh:

I was going to listen to it until you said that!!!

Skan,

i was working in a warehouse going through college when i first heard this sermon....it starts out slow...by the title I was thinking this seems odd....it has been one of the most stunning messages i have ever heard....and it taught me that everything in scripture has a divine purpose....

Give it a good listen...let me know what you think....I listened to it a few times each year since, and still learn from it.
How he ties it back to the cross, is masterful...I believe God given wisdom
if several in here get to listen ..we could do a thread on it,,,it speaks to many areas of our life and understanding.

 

[Luke2427]

Here is more reading
The Scriptural authority for the doctrine of decrees will appear from the following statements and references, gathered with slight modifications from Hodge's Outlines, pp., 205-213:

1. God's decrees are eternal. Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 2:7.

2. They are immutable. Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9.

3. They comprehend all events.

(1.) The Scriptures assert this of the whole system in general embraced in the divine decrees. Dan. 4:34, 35; Acts 17:26; Eph. 1:11.

(2.) They affirm the same of fortuitous events. Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29, 30.

(3.) Also of the free actions of men. Eph. 2:10, 11; Phil. 2:13.

(4.) Even the wicked actions of men. Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:29; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4; Rev. 17:17. As to the history of Joseph, compare Gen. 37:28, with Gen. 45:7, 8, and Gen. 50:20. See also Ps. 17:13, 14; Isa. 10:5, 15.

4. The decrees of God are not conditional. Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 14:24, 27 ; 46:10; Rom. 9:11.

5. They are sovereign. Isa. 40:13, 14; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:11, 15-18; Eph. 1:5, 11.

6. They include the means. Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2.

7. They determine the free actions of men. Acts 4:27, 28 ; Eph. 2:10.

8. God himself works in his people that faith and obedience which are called the conditions of salvation. Eph. 2:8; Phil. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25.

9. The decree renders the event certain. Matt. 16:21; Luke 18:31-33; 24:46; Acts 2:23; 13:29; 1 Cor. 11:19.

10. While God has decreed the free acts of men, the actors have been none the less responsible. Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28.


http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_02.htm

http://www.frontlinemin.org/objdec.asp

Thank you iconoclast.

This is what I have been trying to get Skandelon to see for months.

He does not understand compatabalism and he has not spoken with enough mainstream Calvinists deeply enough to get it.

He has literally said that all of us who say God PURPOSED for sin to exist and God ORDAINED it are outside the scope of mainstream Calvinists.

Of course that means that all the Puritans were outside the scope of mainstream Calvinism.

So was Jonathan Edwards and so is John Piper and Bruce Ware- oh- and so is John Calvin.

 

[Skandelon]

You and I do not believe that God's eternal purposes can EVER be thwarted.

As some of the "non-cals" said themselves, they believe that God's purposes CAN and ARE thwarted all of the time.

Luke, I honestly think you are talking about two different things. Please allow me to explain:

They hear you saying "God always gets what he wants or desires." (as that was the title of your thread), but clearly there are some things which happen that God doesn't desire or take pleasure in. It may serve His ultimate purpose and in that sense, yes, it is according to His sovereign purpose/will.

So, while God may have a purpose in the perishing of wicked, He may not WANT or DESIRE or take PLEASURE in the perishing of the wicked. This is why the way you ask questions can be confusing and cause point of contention that really don't need to exist between Calvinistic Baptists and Non-Calvinistic Baptists. Do you understand my point?

 

[JesusFan]

Can you clearly explain the distinction between (1) God not bringing evil to pass by his positive agency and (2) God planning and purposing that evil should exist.

I'm just trying to understand your distinction between these two concepts to see if we can find some common ground. Thank you.

God allowed Evil and Sin to come to pass into His creation in order that through it, His plan of redeeming man and the Creation out from it would be even greater than what man and the creation was subjected to by falls of satan and man...

the Lord cannot cause evila nd sin, against His holy nature, did cause to bring to pass into History His great master plan to redeem out of the wreak caused by it His creation, and those whom He would save...

God used the acts and plans of eveil/wicked men and Devil to accomplish his great plans and purposes...

See it as God determining to bring glory to Himself out of the wicked schemes and plans of Satan and men, that he determined to both directly cause and to use their ways to bring to pass His plan and purposes!

 

[Luke2427]

Can you clearly explain the distinction between (1) God not bringing evil to pass by his positive agency and (2) God planning and purposing that evil should exist.

I'm just trying to understand your distinction between these two concepts to see if we can find some common ground. Thank you.

God's positive agency is ANYTHING that occurs that is good.

God is actively bringing that to pass.

When a sinner is saved, when a saint gives to missions or helps some hungry family with groceries all for the glory of God, etc, etc, etc...

God's passive involvement has to do with when ANYTHING evil occurs.

A man wishes to worship a false god, or to harm his neighbor with evil motives-

The evil that exists there exists because God has removed his moral goodness from that situation.

Just as darkness ensues when light vacates so does evil ensue when God's goodness vacates.

Since God is not moving IN but rather moving OUT in those situations it cannot rightly be said that those situations are proximately caused by God and his positive agency.

But when good takes place, God is not moving OUT there- no- the good is taking place for the very reason that God is moving INTO that situation.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, I honestly think you are talking about two different things. Please allow me to explain:

They hear you saying "God always gets what he wants or desires." (as that was the title of your thread), but clearly there are some things which happen that God doesn't desire or take pleasure in. It may serve His ultimate purpose and in that sense, yes, it is according to His sovereign purpose/will.

So, while God may have a purpose in the perishing of wicked, He may not WANT or DESIRE or take PLEASURE in the perishing of the wicked. This is why the way you ask questions can be confusing and cause point of contention that really don't need to exist between Calvinistic Baptists and Non-Calvinistic Baptists. Do you understand my point?

I understand that and have from the beginning.

What God takes pleasure in was not the subject of the thread.

I did not say, nor imply, nor hint at the idea that God takes pleasure in evil.

If they want to hear "Spaghetti monsters eat pink elephants," when I say, "God's eternal purposes are NEVER thwarted- I cannot help that.

People can hear what they want to hear.

I am not responsible for what people want to hear.

I am responsible for what I say.

And what I say is what YOU BELIEVE-

That EVERYTHING that EVER HAPPENS FOREVER happens according to the eternal purposes of God.
Now God wants some things for what they are and he wants other things for what he will bring from them- but everything happens because he wants it to happen.

Now if they read that and hear, "Tinkerbell has a thing for Captain Hook,"- well I can't help that.

 

[Skandelon]

Thank you iconoclast.

This is what I have been trying to get Skandelon to see for months.

He does not understand compatabalism and he has not spoken with enough mainstream Calvinists deeply enough to get it.

Here is a post where I thoroughly addressed what I feel are the major problems with the Compatibilistic framework. It was posted in 2007 and I have had countless conversations both before and after this one thoroughly addressing, and correctly representing Compatiblism.

Once again you resort to unfounded and immature accusations instead of simply engaging in a reasonable and respectful conversation. Please stop.

He has literally said that all of us who say God PURPOSED for sin to exist and God ORDAINED it are outside the scope of mainstream Calvinists.

Find an actual quote or stop putting words in my mouth Luke. You cannot be trusted to properly represent my views on any subject. Quote me verbatim or leave me out of the discussion, ok?

Of course that means that all the Puritans were outside the scope of mainstream Calvinism.

So was Jonathan Edwards and so is John Piper and Bruce Ware- oh- and so is John Calvin.

Did you know MacArthur and others accuse guys like Pink (the man Iconoclast quoted) as being outside the mainstream and in opposition to what he defines as being true "biblical" Calvinistic thought?

Could it be that I understand your views but just want to point out where they differ from what some consider to be true classical/orthodox Calvinism? It's fine to disagree with me or the like of Edwards or MacArthur or even Calvin, but to accuse me of "not understanding" or "not getting it" or "misrepresenting you" is getting old and is completely unfounded.

 

[Skandelon]

I understand that and have from the beginning.

What God takes pleasure in was not the subject of the thread.

Yet the title utilized the term "want" which carries a very clear connotation regarding what one "desires" or "takes pleasure in." I'm not saying it can't be taken any other way, I'm only pointing to the confusion of not drawing a clear distinction in what Piper calls "the two wills of God." You are arguing for one aspect of what God wills and they are arguing against another aspect of what God doesn't desire and you just keep talking right past each other. Why not just be more clear and acknowledge the distinction that Piper and the other reformed posters have acknowledged here in this thread?