The origin of evil and the decrees of God

[JesusFan]

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.

Does the Devil do what he does because God permits it, as He has chosen to allow eveil acts sins etc be done, and that will be permitted until,Second Coming of Christ?

or does the devil act directly under control of God, that God determines what he does each and every time?

 

[Luke2427]

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.

All I know is that you have demonstrated that you have no grasp on compatabalism because I practically quoted Bruce Ware, who is a leading proponent of compatabalism and you said that I was not representing mainstream Calvinism because I said that "God DID it..." concerning the affliction of Job and Joseph and the killing of Christ.

I set you straight on this with a video by Dr. Bruce Ware where he said EXACTLY the same thing. EXACTLY and NNE is any more moderate a Calvinist than Dr. Bruce Ware and still able to rightly hold the title (Geisler is not really a Calvinist). But you pretended that I was to the RIGHT of mainstream Calvinism when I was practically quoting someone for support of my views who leans to the LEFT!

That's proof enough.

You know this is true.

I have prison ministry tonight and do not have time to peruse for an hour and locate all of those posts.

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?

There has probably NEVER in the history of Baptist board been anyone who has done this as badly as you did with your dishonest brackets.

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?

And?

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?

No, it could not be for numerous reasons among which is the one I enunciated above.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

God's absence might explain why evil was able to originate, but it doesn't explain what originated evil. You must agree that the creature originated the evil intent once God permitted it by removing himself, right?

 

[Luke2427]

Does the Devil do what he does because God permits it, as He has chosen to allow eveil acts sins etc be done, and that will be permitted until,Second Coming of Christ?

or does the devil act directly under control of God, that God determines what he does each and every time?

I have answered you before on this and you disappeared.

If I give you an answer again here will you acknowledge it?

 

[Luke2427]

God's absence might explain why evil was able to originate, but it doesn't explain what originated evil. You must agree that the creature originated the evil intent once God permitted it by removing himself, right?

The location of its origin and the explanation of HOW it came to be are two different things.

Evil began WITH man (the creature rather- Lucifer was probably the first). My wife is here WITH me. But her proximity has little to do with how I came to be.

NOTHING created evil EXACTLY the same as NOTHING creates darkness or cold.

Darkness, cold and evil are not things that have real existence- they are only the absence of things that do exist- namely light, heat and good.

Though they have no real existence they can be bad and harmful etc,...

 

[JesusFan]

I have answered you before on this and you disappeared.

If I give you an answer again here will you acknowledge it?

Just trying to see IF you are of the persons holding that God has really just

1 divine Will, and that he is cause of all things, dtermines all things that happen!

 

[Luke2427]

Just trying to see IF you are of the persons holding that God has really just

1 divine Will, ...

No. And I don't know anybody who purports such a thing.

 

[Skandelon]

And?

Enough said. You clearly have no desire to engage in a respectful and scholarly discussion about the various views that are even debated within your own ranks.

I don't have time or the desire to listen to full sermons in order to pick out various quotes that may or may not support all the different things you attempt to communicate here. If you have a quote you want to provide I'd be glad to look at it, but I doubt many of them would take issue with what I presented in the OP regarding the origin of evil and the decrees of God. If I'm wrong, fine, provide the quote and I'll deal with it specifically. I'm not trusting your representation of what others think. You have proven yourself to be much too ambiguous with your use of terms to be a reliable source.

 

[Skandelon]

I have answered you before on this and you disappeared.

Prove it....

 

[Luke2427]

Enough said. You clearly have no desire to engage in a respectful and scholarly discussion about the various views that are even debated within your own ranks.

I don't have time or the desire to listen to full sermons in order to pick out various quotes that may or may not support all the different things you attempt to communicate here. If you have a quote you want to provide I'd be glad to look at it, but I doubt many of them would take issue with what I presented in the OP regarding the origin of evil and the decrees of God. If I'm wrong, fine, provide the quote and I'll deal with it specifically. I'm not trusting your representation of what others think. You have proven yourself to be much too ambiguous with your use of terms to be a reliable source.

Or you could just admit that you are out of arguments.

You cannot press the issue any further for fear that you might reveal to all the nameless guys that you agree with Calvinists and not them.

This would alienate you.

You have done this before.

This is what I referred to when I rightly accused you earlier of tucking tail.


But regardless- YOU KNOW that you believe that God purposed everything that ever happens.

You may pull the wool over the eyes of some of these guys; you may court them and thereby hide that you do not agree with them in their assertions that God's purposes can be thwarted-

But you and I know what you believe.

That satisfies me.

 

[Skandelon]

Evil began WITH man (the creature rather- Lucifer was probably the first).

Great, so God didn't originate evil, Satan did. So, if the evil intent originated in Satan then that intent had to become known to God, right? If not, explain.

Darkness, cold and evil are not things that have real existence- they are only the absence of things that do exist- namely light, heat and good.

Are you saying Satan's intent to become God didn't really exist? Explain?

If it didn't exist then nothing caused Satan to rebel, because the intent was nothing which is a violation of your premise that every choice has a cause. Are you saying NOTHING caused Satan to rebel? Explain?

Did nothing cause Dahmer to murder too?

 

[Luke2427]

Great, so God didn't originate evil, Satan did. So, if the evil intent originated in Satan then that intent had to become known to God, right? If not, explain.

Go back and put the quote in context where I spoke of proximity, etc... and I will gladly answer this.

Are you saying Satan's intent to become God didn't really exist? Explain?

It existed as much as darkness and cold exist.

And it came into being (though it has no real being- this is the best language we can employ in effort to discuss this philosophical issue) the same way that darkness and cold comes into "being".

By the absence of something.

This is the oldest reputable Christian theodicy known to man.

Evil is the absence of good just as darkness is the absence of light.

Darkness can be bad and harmful and can affect people, places and things- but darkness has no real substance- it is not thought or emotion or time or space or matter- it is not even spirit.

That is how evil is.

If it didn't exist then nothing caused Satan to rebel, because the intent was nothing which is a violation of your premise that every choice has a cause.

Now, see- this is why I like you.

I know you think I don't because I get frustrated at you oftentimes and I know you don't like me- but this is why I like YOU.

This is a fantastic argument. And I do not flatter though you accused me of this. My friends will tell you- I just don't.

I really like how you dipped way back yonder into the arguments I made several months ago about the law of cause and effect and brought it to bear here.

It is a very good point.

The ULTIMATE cause of darkness is the vacating of light.

Just so the ULTIMATE cause of evil is the vacating of good.

Are you saying NOTHING caused Satan to rebel? Explain?

In the same way that darkness causes all kinds of things even though it is really nothing but the absence of light.

In the same way that cold causes hypothermia and frostbite and death and all sorts of terrible things even though it is really nothing but the absence of heat.

 

[Skandelon]

Or you could just admit that you are out of arguments.

What does this even mean, Luke? In one post you call me intelligent and say at least I have a real theology and that you respect that etc etc...then you resort to statements like this rather than just dealing with the substance of the debate.

You cannot press the issue any further for fear that you might reveal to all the nameless guys that you agree with Calvinists and not them.

How many times and in how many different ways must I explain to you that regarding the origin of evil Arminians and Calvinists have typically been in agreement. This is why Edwards attested that his view on the subject was consistent with the Arminian divines. The only thing I am revealing is that you don't agree with the Arminian divines or most of the real Calvinists. We shouldn't even have a point of contention regarding the origin of evil, but we do because your view contradicts what Arminians and Calvinists like Edwards taught.

This would alienate you.

Yes, it would alienate me, the Arminian divines and men like Edwards from you. I'm good with that.

This is what I referred to when I rightly accused you earlier of tucking tail.

Why must you resort to such childish banter? Does it make you feel better about yourself? I dare say I've been more patient and long-suffering with you than any opponent on this board, yet you still falsely accuse me of things like this. Revealing.

But regardless- YOU KNOW that you believe that God purposed everything that ever happens.

Yes, and I've defined what that means making sure people understand the distinction between God's causing evil and permitting it for his own purposes. You recently made that distinction in a post in which I would like to unpack a bit further if you could get past the personal attack mode you are in.

You may pull the wool over the eyes of some of these guys; you may court them and thereby hide that you do not agree with them in their assertions that God's purposes can be thwarted-

You mean "pull the wool over their eyes" by teaching Arminianism? Seriously?

 

[Luke2427]

What does this even mean, Luke? In one post you call me intelligent and say at least I have a real theology and that you respect that etc etc...then you resort to statements like this rather than just dealing with the substance of the debate.

How many times and in how many different ways must I explain to you that regarding the origin of evil Arminians and Calvinists have typically been in agreement. This is why Edwards attested that his view on the subject was consistent with the Arminian divines. The only thing I am revealing is that you don't agree with the Arminian divines or most of the real Calvinists. We shouldn't even have a point of contention regarding the origin of evil, but we do because your view contradicts what Arminians and Calvinists like Edwards taught.

I have proven multiple times this to be utter bunk.

You cannot name a single thing about my theodicy that contradicts historic and MODERN manistream Calvinists.


The point is this:

You don't want folks like quantum and webdog and winman and Van and others to know that you do not agree with them on their belief that God's eternal purposes CAN be thwarted and that everything that happens does not happen according to the eternal purposes of God.

If you would just affirm this we could move on.

But whenever you say, "Yes," you undermine your "yes" with language that clouds your "yes".

If instead you would just say, "I believe that NOTHING happens apart from God's eternal purposes, including all the bad things that ever happen including all the sins ever committed and all the souls going to hell- that ALL THINGS happen EXACTLY according to God's eternal purposes- not just that he knew that they WOULD happen, but that he always INTENDED for them to happen just as they happen."

You don't have to qualify that statement with "But God does not desire these bad things but rather permits them for a purpose." We ALL AGREE ON THAT.

For heaven's sake even the NON-CALS believe that.

NOBODY denies it.

I don't think that MORMONS or JW's or MUSLIMS deny that!!

OF COURSE God must permit it if it is to happen.

And OF COURSE God does not take pleasure in sin!

But NONE of that changes the fact that you believe but won't just come out and say it that NOTHING happens apart from God's eternal purposes, including all the bad things that ever happen including all the sins ever committed and all the souls going to hell- that ALL THINGS happen EXACTLY according to God's eternal purposes- not just that he knew that they WOULD happen, but that he always INTENDED for them to happen just as they happen.

Yes, it would alienate me, the Arminian divines and men like Edwards from you. I'm good with that.

Nope. And several of us have proven you wrong on this several times before.

 

[Skandelon]

you cannot name a single thing about my theodicy that contradicts historic and MODERN manistream Calvinists.

You believe God does the deed (that would be called "evil" if anyone else did it), but because he does it with a good motive, it is not evil. Whereas, Calvinists typically argue that God permits moral evil and uses it for his purposes, but does not cause or author it.

You have also appealed to mystery with regard to the origin of evil, but I don't know why since you say you believe that God can do "IT" while remaining innocent because he does "IT" with a pure motive. I'm not sure why you don't just come out and say God originated or authored evil, but because he did it with a pure motive, its not evil???

The point is this:

You don't want folks like quantum and webdog and winman and Van and others to know that you do not agree with them on their belief that God's eternal purposes CAN be thwarted and that everything that happens does not happen according to the eternal purposes of God.

I can almost promise you that not a single person you just listed (with maybe the exception of Van) would disagree with the OP of this thread. You only think they would because you haven't clearly stated your case and drawn the distinctions I (and scholars like Edwards) have drawn.

If you would just affirm this we could move on.

But whenever you say, "Yes," you undermine your "yes" with language that clouds your "yes".

I think you mean that I clarify my yes so as to distinguish it from your hard deterministic view.

But NONE of that changes the fact that you believe but won't just come out and say it that NOTHING happens apart from God's eternal purposes, including all the bad things that ever happen including all the sins ever committed and all the souls going to hell- that ALL THINGS happen EXACTLY according to God's eternal purposes- not just that he knew that they WOULD happen, but that he always INTENDED for them to happen just as they happen.

Has it occurred to you that maybe God simply permits the creature to do what freely chooses and that is the cause of evil, yet God, being all knowing and Sovereign over all things, can and does use even the evil choices of moral creatures for his own "eternal purposes?"

Nope. And several of us have proven you wrong on this several times before.

So, on the one hand you say you are in agreement with Compatibilism and on the other you say you are in agreement with Edwards and the Arminian divines, right?

So, do the Arminian divines and Compatibilists agree on the origin of evil? If so, can you show where they both teach your version of it (i.e. "God does "IT" but "ITs" not evil because His motive is pure and "evil is like cold because it doesn't really exist.")

 

[webdog]

From what I've seen so far I think the "nameless theology" tag may belong to the owner

 

[Skandelon]

It existed as much as darkness and cold exist.

If darkness is to evil what light is to good, then what does that say of the creature exposed to both darkness and light/ good and evil? If the creature is made like H20 then he would have no choice but to freeze when the heat dropped to 32 degrees, likewise if the creature is exposed to a drop in goodness (evil) at what point is he going to originate an evil intent?

See my point? Just saying that God must remove his goodness doesn't tell us the cause, it only tells us the condition. H20 freezes because its creator made it to freeze at a particular temperature. So, are you arguing that God created Satan to create an evil intent when a certain amount of good was removed? More specifically did he create Satan to originate that particular evil intent when goodness was vanquished? And when does it ever say in scripture that goodness was removed from Satan? He was an angel in heaven surrounded by goodness, right?

It is a very good point.

The ULTIMATE cause of darkness is the vacating of light.

Just so the ULTIMATE cause of evil is the vacating of good.

By that answer we must conclude that Satan was made to rebel by something that doesn't exist. He was made to rebel by the absence of something. Nothing caused the first act of rebellion, is that your position?

 

[quantumfaith]

I have proven multiple times this to be utter bunk.

You cannot name a single thing about my theodicy that contradicts historic and MODERN manistream Calvinists.


The point is this:

You don't want folks like quantum and webdog and winman and Van and others to know that you do not agree with them on their belief that God's eternal purposes CAN be thwarted and that everything that happens does not happen according to the eternal purposes of God.

If you would just affirm this we could move on.

But whenever you say, "Yes," you undermine your "yes" with language that clouds your "yes".

If instead you would just say, "I believe that NOTHING happens apart from God's eternal purposes, including all the bad things that ever happen including all the sins ever committed and all the souls going to hell- that ALL THINGS happen EXACTLY according to God's eternal purposes- not just that he knew that they WOULD happen, but that he always INTENDED for them to happen just as they happen."

You don't have to qualify that statement with "But God does not desire these bad things but rather permits them for a purpose." We ALL AGREE ON THAT.

For heaven's sake even the NON-CALS believe that.

NOBODY denies it.

I don't think that MORMONS or JW's or MUSLIMS deny that!!

OF COURSE God must permit it if it is to happen.

And OF COURSE God does not take pleasure in sin!

But NONE of that changes the fact that you believe but won't just come out and say it that NOTHING happens apart from God's eternal purposes, including all the bad things that ever happen including all the sins ever committed and all the souls going to hell- that ALL THINGS happen EXACTLY according to God's eternal purposes- not just that he knew that they WOULD happen, but that he always INTENDED for them to happen just as they happen.



Nope. And several of us have proven you wrong on this several times before.

I am going to ask you, nicely I might ask, not to make statements like this. Statements which MAY seem to imply that there is some type of "kabal" of followers who do nothing other than line up against You. Even though I often stand in agreement with Skan and some others there is no "anti Luke club". Speaking for myself and ONLY myself, my greatest friction with you is not your position(s), but rather the sharpness with which you express your lack of agreement and respect for others, using adjectives like "bunk", "ridiculous" etc.

If you simply argue(debate) your position without such adjectives in civil kindness things would be so much better.

Now to my position on theodicy, as it currently stands. I believe, and I am not calling yours "bunk" simply because I do not share it, is this.

I believe evil exists as a necessary result of creatures with rational and moral freedom. The ability, as I believe men and angels were created and endowed with, to choose otherwise and not being "perfect" as is God, has brought into existence evil. I do believe that you are being consistent with regard to your own theology and the emphasis you place on the glory of God, evil being the means of God creating for Himself ultimate glory from calvary. However, my position disagrees with this in that "I think" such a position ignores or discounts God's asiety. My position, of rational and moral freedom being the "culprit" of evil, is itself "compatible" while the very simple truth is neither you nor I nor anyone else here can know the mind of God on the essence of the matter.

 

[kyredneck]

...I don't see a lack of clarity but a lack of understanding. If I say that God predestined sin but didn't cause it and therefore is not the author of it, that's pretty clear to me. I'm saying He decreed to permit it. I know some people get hung up on the word "predestined" and equate it to direct causation, but I think they're forcing a definition on the word that is not there.

Excellent post/articulation J.D.. To your question that you posed to the PBs concerning 'the predestination of all things' over on the General Discussion Forum, my basic answer was, “that word 'predestinate' in the KJB NT is used only 4 times, and that only in reference to God choosing a people for his own possession.” As near as I can tell, 'proorizw' is actually used 6 times in the NT, and I'm still of the opinion that it's used only in reference to God's intent to redeem a people for his own possession. I'll elaborate:

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed , both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together ,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done . Acts 4

29 For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate , them he also called : and whom he called , them he also justified : and whom he justified , them he also glorified . Ro 8

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew : for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor 2

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
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: Eph 1

I like Skandelon's differentiation between 'permissive and decretive' decrees here. Look at the passage from Corinthians; God “ordained before the world” the crucifixion, BUT, had the ones that actually crucified Him known of that decree, they would not have done it. The jealousy/envy/animosity of the Jews towards Christ was already inherent within them, but God permissively used their hatred to bring about the crucifixion simply by hiding His intent from them. Thus the parables of Christ. He spoke to them in riddles so that they would not understand. JMHO.

 

[J.D.]

Excellent post/articulation J.D.. To your question that you posed to the PBs concerning 'the predestination of all things' over on the General Discussion Forum, my basic answer was, “that word 'predestinate' in the KJB NT is used only 4 times, and that only in reference to God choosing a people for his own possession.” As near as I can tell, 'proorizw' is actually used 6 times in the NT, and I'm still of the opinion that it's used only in reference to God's intent to redeem a people for his own possession. I'll elaborate:

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed , both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together ,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done . Acts 4

29 For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate , them he also called : and whom he called , them he also justified : and whom he justified , them he also glorified . Ro 8

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew : for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor 2

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
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: Eph 1

I like Skandelon's differentiation between 'permissive and decretive' decrees here. Look at the passage from Corinthians; God “ordained before the world” the crucifixion, BUT, had the ones that actually crucified Him known of that decree, they would not have done it. The jealousy/envy/animosity of the Jews towards Christ was already inherent within them, but God permissively used their hatred to bring about the crucifixion simply by hiding His intent from them. Thus the parables of Christ. He spoke to them in riddles so that they would not understand. JMHO.

Brother, you said nothing there that I can disagree with - it seems all about how we parse the terms. I know in the PB world the discussion is about predestination, whereas in the reformed world it's about the order of decrees, but it's the same type of intramural discussion.