The origin of evil and the decrees of God

[JesusFan]

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.

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?

Well...

basically all comes down to this on this subject...

DID God force/cause satan to rebel, and did He cause/force Adam to Sin?

That His will is exhaustive, and he indeed as determined ALl things that have occurred
OR

DID God KNOW what they would each do, and had already predetermine jost HOW He purposed to "fix the problem" and get glory from it? taht he would use their actions and have it included in Plan to glorify Himself by redeeming back creation and man?

 

[humblethinker]

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.

Although I can't yet put my finger exactly on it, there seems to be a logical problem at work here in this proposition, some form of logical fallacy.

 

[kyredneck]

Although I can't yet put my finger exactly on it, there seems to be a logical problem at work here in this proposition, some form of logical fallacy.

Makes perfect sense to me. Man, left to his own devices. Do you have faith in man left to his own devices?

 

[kyredneck]

.....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.

Thanks for making that distinction for me.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

I have explained this ad nauseum.

A deed in and of itself has no personality.

What makes killing murder is the PERSON and his motive in doing the killing.

This is why I know that you do not understand compatabalism.

Compatabalism looks at a singular deed and sees TWO WILLS behind it.

One- the will of God, his motive- is righteous.

The other- the motive or will of man- is unrighteous.

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"

If you do not acknowledge that IT refers to the deed, the action and not the sin I will have to conclude that you are being horrifically dishonest and manipulative here.

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???

I have explained this ad nauseum as well. I believe with John Calvin and all mainstream historic Calvinists in remote and proximate causes.

That you do not understand what mainstream Calvinism teaches on this matter is no excuse for you to accuse me of being outside the mainstream.

That God DID IT is appropriate understanding of the affliction of Joseph and Job and Christ within the mainstream Calvinistic understanding of compatabalism is clear for anyone to see.

I provided this video to prove it. Did you watch it?

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.

I don't think ANYONE denies the essence of the OP- not Mormons, not Protestants, not Catholics, not Muslims- NNE denies it because it is so vague and broad that it is POINTLESS.

What they do not agree with you on is what you agree with me and the whole of Calvinism on:

Namely, that nothing, good or bad, happens outside of God's purposes. That God has always intended for everything to happen just as it happens.

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?

Wrong.

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.")

I have done this above.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Makes perfect sense to me. Man, left to his own devices. Do you have faith in man left to his own devices?

LOL....that in a nutshell sums it up! Cristal Clear!!!

 

[webdog]

What needs to be defined is "man's own devices".

God has given man creation.
God has written His law into the heart of men.
God has created man with the desire for life beyond the present.
God has placed each and every man in the perfect location and place in time to seek Him.

These are "devices" man has. Do I have faith what God has equipped man with is sufficient? You better believe it!

 

[Skandelon]

I have explained this ad nauseum.

A deed in and of itself has no personality.

What makes killing murder is the PERSON and his motive in doing the killing.

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.

This is why I know that you do not understand compatabalism.

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.

Compatabalism looks at a singular deed and sees TWO WILLS behind it.

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.

If you do not acknowledge that IT refers to the deed, the action and not the sin I will have to conclude that you are being horrifically dishonest and manipulative here.

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.

That you do not understand what mainstream Calvinism teaches on this matter is no excuse for you to accuse me of being outside the mainstream.

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?

That God DID IT is appropriate understanding of the affliction of Joseph and Job and Christ within the mainstream Calvinistic understanding of compatabalism is clear for anyone to see.

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.

I don't think ANYONE denies the essence of the OP- not Mormons, not Protestants, not Catholics, not Muslims- NNE denies it because it is so vague and broad that it is POINTLESS.

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

Wrong.

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?

 

[Skandelon]

What needs to be defined is "man's own devices".

God has given man creation.
God has written His law into the heart of men.
God has created man with the desire for life beyond the present.
God has placed each and every man in the perfect location and place in time to seek Him.

These are "devices" man has. Do I have faith what God has equipped man with is sufficient? You better believe it!

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."