The practicality of theological views...

[Luke2427]

If this is true, then may I suggest you stop teaching things like...

"Satan did it- but so did God." - Luke
("it" was in reference to 'evil')

"The Scripture is clear. God is DOING these things. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right."
-Luke

"God willed the most horrible sin of all time"- Luke

"God willed for evil" -Luke

When I interjected to clarify, I asked if you really meant God permitted or allowed evil. And you replied saying...

"The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE." -Luke

"God does not just allow these things" -Luke

So, apparently you don't know HOW God ordains evil, but YOU DO KNOW He does it and doesn't merely allow it.... interesting...

I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE DOING THIS AGAIN.

I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE "IT" REFERRED TO EVIL. I KNOW I HAVE SAID A DOZEN TIMES THAT THE "IT" OBVIOUSLY REFERRED TO THE "DEED" NOT THE EVIL.

GOD AFFLICTED JOB- PERIOD.
SATAN AFFLICTED JOB- PERIOD.

THE "IT" REFERS TO THE "AFFLICTION"- NOT THE EVIL.

THE "IT" ON SATAN'S PART WAS EVIL.
THE "IT" ON GOD'S PART WAS RIGHTEOUS.

[personal attacks removed]

I have NEVER IN MY LIFE BELIEVED FOR ONE SECOND THAT GOD IS CAPABLE OF DOING EVIL.
[personal attacks removed]

 

[Luke2427]

bingo!!!!!!!

That is besides the point. No Protestant thinks otherwise. It is a worthless comment. And to shout bingo in approval is mind numbing to me.

NNE is saying that the authors of the creeds had ANY inspiration at all or were at all more holy than anyone else.

What thinking people in the church DO REALIZE however is that the author's of the creeds were smarter and more gifted than most, if not all of us put together.

On top of that they lived in a day when these things were being hashed out more than they ever were before or since in the history of mankind.

No one with an ounce of humility and spiritual discernment would turn their nose up at these very valuable tools that God has blessed us with.

You don't have to agree with them perfectly. But to act like they are not extremely valuable to us and extraordinarily helpful is- well, a lot of dark words which would be appropriate come to mind.

 

[webdog]

So an "affliction" (something resulting from the fall...the biggest evil event in the history of the world) is not evil, particularly when satan is the one desiring to inflict the misery, pain and suffering. It it's not evil, why does satan need permission to do it?

 

[Luke2427]

So an "affliction" (something resulting from the fall...the biggest evil event in the history of the world) is not evil, particularly when satan is the one desiring to inflict the misery, pain and suffering. It it's not evil, why does satan need permission to do it?

Why does God GIVE permission?

 

[zrs6v4]

Skandelon,

I remember debating on this issue with you about a year ago. I agree with Luke on his initial response to this question. I cannot confidently say that every single matter upheld by his view is derived solely from Scripture without looking at each single concept being discussed. You are right in pointing out that the biggest issue that we have is not how God controls the good of His will primarily because that indeed is within His nature. The issue is how do we determine how God secondarily controls all of the evil that goes on (with emphasis on His choice and control without doing it or primarily causing it).

This is very hard to understand and probably impossible. You being an "applied theologian" probably do not get all the "how" answers you need anyway which I presume is what led you away from it to begin with (no offense if I'm wrong)? This debate has similarities to understanding the trinity or the eternality of God. This is why Molinists opt out of this debate with resting in both sides of the matter.

I've tried to do discussions, but they are typically reasoned out with how modern atheists try to reason for the existence of God. The questions are endless and I'm not sure if either side is willing to budge on the matter anyway. Luke pointed something out very important that was actually quoted in the OP. I pay attention to how many views the thread has and try to stay mindful of how many people we are influencing in our daily online debates. I think Luke is right on the money that these discussions are serious and should at least be handled and practiced with humility. Much easier said than done.

Question to Skandelon and others who have posted from the same perspective: How do you reason God's providence and how He achieves all He purposes? I do not ask that in a confontational way, I'm just interested in how you deal with it. Is He or is He not in control of every single thing from the falling of a leaf to the falling and rising of nations? If He is in control does this include controlling evil or simply allowing it? How does He work around the wild evil issue?

 

[percho]

You mean free will?

Free enough to die forever unless we have a savior.

 

[Skandelon]

I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE DOING THIS AGAIN.

I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE "IT" REFERRED TO EVIL. I KNOW I HAVE SAID A DOZEN TIMES THAT THE "IT" OBVIOUSLY REFERRED TO THE "DEED" NOT THE EVIL.

GOD AFFLICTED JOB- PERIOD.
SATAN AFFLICTED JOB- PERIOD.

THE "IT" REFERS TO THE "AFFLICTION"- NOT THE EVIL.

THE "IT" ON SATAN'S PART WAS EVIL.
THE "IT" ON GOD'S PART WAS RIGHTEOUS.

You cannot be that dense that you are so totally incapable of grasping that.

There is almost nothing that you post that is not a GROSS misrepresentation of someone you quote or refer to....

Luke, did you read ALL the quotes I posted?

I also quoted you saying, "God willed for evil" -Luke

"God willed the most horrible sin of all time" - Luke

And I quoted your qualification of "evil" as not really being "evil" when God 'did it."

"The Scripture is clear. God is DOING these things. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right."
-Luke

So, the accusation of me misrepresenting your already convoluted and unsupported view is in itself also convoluted and unsupported. At least your approach is consistent.

In Job, the problem with your view is that God doesn't do the deed, Satan does. The reason Job blames God is because (1) his perspective is limited in that he doesn't know what is revealed in the first chapter and (2) at that time anything God allowed was deemed as 'from God' though scripture later makes it clear through further revelation that God's holiness doesn't allow him even to tempt men to evil much less cause/determine it.

 

[Skandelon]

zrs,

First, I appreciate the nature of your post. Very well thought out and cordially presented. Thank you.

I agree, that there are questions that just can't be answered...especially to the satisfaction of everyone represented. However, my view doesn't typically attempt to answer all the questions. My view, as I see it, is typically attempting to question or even remove the dogmatic answers that some theological systems impose upon questions that the scriptures have not fully answered. For example, the question, "If God knows all before creating all does that mean He has determined it to be?" This question is based in finite human logic and reason based upon a linear mindset. Anytime the word "before" or "after" is used in reference to a timeless being in relation to cause and effect one has to know we are treading into speculation, not revealed truth.

Question to Skandelon and others who have posted from the same perspective: How do you reason God's providence and how He achieves all He purposes? I do not ask that in a confontational way, I'm just interested in how you deal with it. Is He or is He not in control of every single thing from the falling of a leaf to the falling and rising of nations? If He is in control does this include controlling evil or simply allowing it? How does He work around the wild evil issue?

I do affirm that God is 'in control' over all things. However, I also affirm, as scripture teaches, that God has given authority and dominion to other rulers of this dark and fallen world.

The answer to how God accomplishes his ultimate purposes in, through and despite the evil, sin and suffering of this world is certainly beyond our full comprehension for His ways are higher than our ways. But, what do we know? We know God is holy and just and doesn't even tempt men to do evil. We also know God loves people and doesn't want any to perish. We know he is slow to anger, abounding in love and mercy and long-suffering toward those who act in rebellion. We know he desires his enemies to be reconciled to him. All these truths are made abundantly clear.

Some believe the only way for God to ensure victory is to 'play both sides of the chess board.' I don't mean to offend with that colloquialism, for all I mean is that this more 'deterministic' view tends to think God must be equally in-control of the bad as he is the good in order for him to guarantee his planned outcome. Personally, I don't believe scripture reveals God's sovereignty in this manner.

Instead, 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.

That being said, I believe 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 type of 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.

 

[webdog]

Why does God GIVE permission?

I asked first.

 

[WWJDKID]

I asked first.

[snipped- personal attack]

 

[quantumfaith]

Skandelon,

I remember debating on this issue with you about a year ago. I agree with Luke on his initial response to this question. I cannot confidently say that every single matter upheld by his view is derived solely from Scripture without looking at each single concept being discussed. You are right in pointing out that the biggest issue that we have is not how God controls the good of His will primarily because that indeed is within His nature. The issue is how do we determine how God secondarily controls all of the evil that goes on (with emphasis on His choice and control without doing it or primarily causing it).

This is very hard to understand and probably impossible. You being an "applied theologian" probably do not get all the "how" answers you need anyway which I presume is what led you away from it to begin with (no offense if I'm wrong)? This debate has similarities to understanding the trinity or the eternality of God. This is why Molinists opt out of this debate with resting in both sides of the matter.

I've tried to do discussions, but they are typically reasoned out with how modern atheists try to reason for the existence of God. The questions are endless and I'm not sure if either side is willing to budge on the matter anyway. Luke pointed something out very important that was actually quoted in the OP. I pay attention to how many views the thread has and try to stay mindful of how many people we are influencing in our daily online debates. I think Luke is right on the money that these discussions are serious and should at least be handled and practiced with humility. Much easier said than done.

Question to Skandelon and others who have posted from the same perspective: How do you reason God's providence and how He achieves all He purposes? I do not ask that in a confontational way, I'm just interested in how you deal with it. Is He or is He not in control of every single thing from the falling of a leaf to the falling and rising of nations? If He is in control does this include controlling evil or simply allowing it? How does He work around the wild evil issue?

Thank you for your "spirit" here in asking such. I think God is completely sovereign and most certainly can exercise complete and absolute authority and control of everything. It is my conviction that he has in fact fashioned creation with the "wiggle room" of "free will" and thus he has fashioned creation from a sample space of "limited options". I do not believe anything that occurs in creation however infinitesimal or grand is ever a surprise to Him in anyway. I do believe that there are most assuredly people, circumstances and events that He decreed to occur, I am not "convinced" that every event, action etc is necessarily decreed by Him, but that is not to say that this is beyond His capability as I think it would be foolish to say such.

 

[zrs6v4]

I do affirm that God is 'in control' over all things. However, I also affirm, as scripture teaches, that God has given authority and dominion to other rulers of this dark and fallen world.

I am sure we all agree on this point that God is in control, but our disagreements arise when discussing how He controls as your post here reveals. What does control mean? Does that mean He can do something if He wants, when He wants? Does that mean He actually plays the universe like a chess board good vs evil as you say where He is both sides? Does that mean that He sometimes plays both sides but at times lets one or the other side do something out of His control? Does He control by nature, by the Spirit, by orchestrating what He allows to happen or what He primarily causes? So many questions to consider on each of our definitions. I said it was impossible in my previous post because all sides have weak points and questions that they really wish never come up. In my view I believe God controls everything to perfection. In the end it all happens as He wants while He doesn't necessarily desire people to go to hell or to suffer pain in some weird sense. Both of us have to ask why He did it or why He let it happen. In either case He can be indirectly to blame if indeed He is all powerful and do anything He pleases. The question is does Scripture reveal any hint of any of our views. Obviously mine is a type of determinism where God determins all that comes to pass and perfectly controls all of it so that every card that comes into play falls into the right spot at the right time leaving no room for accident, chance, error, or any possibility for His purposes to be controlled by another factor. (This lengthy paragraph was in response to all paragraphs not quoted to save space).

Instead, 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.'"

I am not sure how everyone defines decree. I define it a foreordaining will. I other words a decree is what God has set in stone before He put anything into play. So His decrees came before the world began. This is where I call everything a decree of God. Permissive decrees are what God wills to happen and they perfectly happen according to what He wills. This is the greatest mystery, that is how He controls what is not His nature or better said, how He controls evil. The primary and secondary causation rules never really fully explain this phenomenon. Even your view seems shady to me. How can God decree the permission of the origin of evil? He could have stopped it. He knew that most would go to hell because of it including a large number of angels, He knew all time and space would suffer chaos and borderline hell. He could have done a number of things to prevent it. He didn't tempt Satan, Adam, or Eve nor did He make them sin. Its as if God had no choice or no power over their choices, but yet He had full control and power over all that happened in some miraculous way. So as you see I deny all possibility of God primarily causing any sin or evil but rather allowing it. Yet, if God willed it beforehand to happen to an exact set of events how could He simply have let the dice roll where they rolled and still be in control? I do not know, you do not know, but somehow He had more control in His allowance than we can fathom.

I forgot to comment on His mere knowing. I do not have any comments on how God's knowing all things at all times effects what happens and what He decrees. It seems silly to disconnect what God knows and what He decrees. Seems like they relate, but I will let that be for right now.

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

You go on to define these as permissive and decretive decrees. I believe the same thing (although we differ in view) but I speak about this as primary and secondary causation of God. Primary as you define how God directly involves Himself and Secondary is how He indirectly involves Himself (evil, sin, etc..)

It seems as though everything in some sense is decreed by God in your view? Either it falls under decretive or permissive and I agree with you on this. I further agree that God's omniscience would play a huge factor in this, yet I do not understand why you leave it to God's omniscience? How can God's decrees (everything that happens from minute 1 to the final minute in creation) come perfectly to pass (not be thwarted) by Him permitting 99% of what goes on and working through all that which He permits? How can He control something He only sees happen? Yes He can prevent it if He doesn't like it, but of course there is much more to it that we can understand as you say. I do not understand your statement, "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." It is either God is or is not in control and is everything that happens what He has always wanted to happen in the deepest sense? If He is in control and all happens according to His plans in the deepest sense, then all is decreed by Him even that which He eternally hates. Maybe you can explain your position here.

I think there are so many factors we assume on here against each other and we build walls and make teams without verbally announcing it. I think it is only to our own destruction. I hope we all aim for the right motives here in our posting instead of wasting valuable time aimlessly arguing over the same points. As for your statement regarding the accusations made against one another about pinning God with sin. I agree that none of our intentions are to do that although misunderstandings, bad definitions, and poor explanations can easily leas to that. That is where questions are the most powerful weapon instead of pulling out the weapons and unleashing chaos.

 

[Skandelon]

Obviously mine is a type of determinism where God determins all that comes to pass and perfectly controls all of it so that every card that comes into play falls into the right spot at the right time leaving no room for accident, chance, error, or any possibility for His purposes to be controlled by another factor.

What man calls "chance" is simply that which comes to pass in a way we can't possibly define, duplicate or fully understand. So, by 'chance' the dice may come up as a 5, but that simply means we are too limited in our ability to measure the force of the dice thrower's hand, the air, the table's density etc etc etc to explain how the 5 came up, but that doesn't mean it can't be known. I point this out because there are certain functions known only to God, such as the free will decision of man. We can't possibly understand all the variables as to why one person chooses this shirt rather than that one, this parking place rather than that one, this song rather than that one...etc. We simply call it 'free' because it is a mystery and beyond full comprehension, just like the dice thrown on the table.

That being said, when any theological system begins to dogmatically claim it KNOWS the answer to the question as to "why" someone chooses this over that, in the manner as "what determined the choice to be what it was," they are stepping beyond revelation and into speculation, IMHO. It is like a nerd attempting to tell you why the dice came up on five, when you know full well its beyond his full comprehension to ascertain all the variables involved. He may sound really smart in his attempt but it all amounts to technical gibberish with no real practical application in real life because everyone knows he can't really fully discern and/or duplicate the actuality of the dice coming up a 5. See my point?

Scripture reveals a God interacting with us within time and space. Now, some may dismiss such revelation as being 'anthropomorphic' but can someone explain to me why it would be wrong to believe in a God by the manner he chooses to reveal himself? Meaning, if he chooses to reveal himself by anthropomorphic terms how can it be wrong to believe and follow him according to those terms rather than manmade theological concepts invented by scholars with too much time on their hands (i.e. nerds explaining why the dice came up on 5)?

I can give more practical examples of what I mean but this is already too long and I haven't even got to the rest of your post. More latter. Thanks for the cordial and thoughtful discussion.

 

[zrs6v4]

Thank you for your "spirit" here in asking such. I think God is completely sovereign and most certainly can exercise complete and absolute authority and control of everything. It is my conviction that he has in fact fashioned creation with the "wiggle room" of "free will" and thus he has fashioned creation from a sample space of "limited options". I do not believe anything that occurs in creation however infinitesimal or grand is ever a surprise to Him in anyway. I do believe that there are most assuredly people, circumstances and events that He decreed to occur, I am not "convinced" that every event, action etc is necessarily decreed by Him, but that is not to say that this is beyond His capability as I think it would be foolish to say such.

Quantum,

So you simply believe God in His sovereignty does have the power and right to control anything including both good and evil. You believe instead of Him doing this in all events He has willed no to at times. In the will of God in its ultimate sense God has opted not to excerise this power over all but rather make thing in such a way that there is human free will that is separate from Gods will.Is that an accurate summary?

 

[zrs6v4]

Skandelon,

So does God control the chance or luck situations? Or as quantum believes, He allows them to happen by natural occurances that are purposeless in His uses? Or is this area the red zone we simply cant understand? I second your explanation of complexity to these daily decisions each of us makes billions of. This where in my view i acknowledge the complexity and further that God puts every occurance of time and space together like an infinite puzzle that perfectly weaves together from start to finish. I, unlike quantum, believe there are no loose ends in anything. It seems that this thinking has much practical application in our daily lives.

I agree that when we start trying to explain this complexity of Gods seemingly infinite will we venture from Scripture. Yet, i do believe scripture teaches us that He decrees all things and is in complete control of all things. We can believe that and reason like i have without explaining the "hows" which is where many stumble in the first place. Like how can God decree one to believe in Christ make it happen for certain, and yet the person still makes a free willing choice (calvinism)?

Your last question is tough to inderstand at least for me. God does reveal Himself accurately and truthfully sometime using anthropomorphism. It all comes down to whether He has revealed Himself as we say or not. If we are wrong as you know our practical applications will suffer in our misunderstanding. Now if you believe God speaks in language we understand and does things different then we all might as well stay simple minded. Arguments that come to mind in this discussion would be those that take our arguments here and say we cant understand bc God is eternal acting in time and space, to determine his will we must understand eternal beings. Is that where you are going? If im right webdog has argued this choosing from the eternal perspective.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon,

So does God control the chance or luck situations?

Yes, I think so, but probably not in the way we think of 'control.' (i.e. I decide it will be X so I determine it to be X in such a way that it could not be otherwise)

We admittedly are stepping into speculation here but I suppose God has written the 'laws of nature' by which cause and effect exists as we know it. Our finite understanding and limited scope of knowledge about such infinite things leave us only with the ability to speculate as to how those 'laws of nature' regarding cause and effect influence the determination of a free moral agent's choice. To dogmatically assert that the choice is determined by the desire, which is determined by the nature, which is determined by God (as compatibilism appears to argue) is pure conjecture and amounts to nothing more that the 'nerd' providing his dice rolling theories from my previous post. Why not leave what is a mystery as just that; a mystery? Why not simply teach that men make choices for which they are responsible and leave the speculation out of it?

I, unlike quantum, believe there are no loose ends in anything. It seems that this thinking has much practical application in our daily lives.

I can't speak for quantum, but maybe all he means by 'loose ends' is that it is 'unknown' and all together mysterious. Like trying to understand how an omniscient being makes choices or originates a new thought...can we really grasp such things? Yet, scripture presents God as having thoughts, making choices and responding to man within time and space. Why can't we believe in Him according to the terms He himself chose to make himself known? If he says he makes choices then I believe he makes choice. How does a God who has always known what he is going to do ever come to point of making a choice or thinking a new thought? I have no idea, but the scripture reveals him in this manner so I believe in him and teach of him using those terms. Do we really think we can improve on His method of revelation with out fancy theological 'omni-this' and 'omni-that' jargon? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind theological terms, but why not stick with the biblical ones instead of inventing new ones?

Yet, i do believe scripture teaches us that He decrees all things and is in complete control of all things. We can believe that and reason like i have without explaining the "hows" which is where many stumble in the first place. Like how can God decree one to believe in Christ make it happen for certain, and yet the person still makes a free willing choice (calvinism)?

I agree and I think this is where the decretive and permissive aspects of God's decree comes into play. Calvinists place the faith response of man under the decretive decree of God while a non-Cal would place it under the permissive decree. Both groups would agree that God has decretively decreed what will come of all believers, but only the Calvinists insist that man's choice is really God's choice, which goes back to the previous mystery as to how God made a choice. So, while Calvinists may think libertarians are illogical in their appeal to mystery, they are only delaying the appeal to mystery by one step, all the while confounding the matters regarding individual responsibility, the concept of reward/punishment, and divine culpability.

 

[zrs6v4]

Skandelon,

This might be the first time i have ever said this but i think we can agree to disagree here. You make good points but it seems like this is a good stopping point. Thanks for spending the time to explain your perspective, you gave many new challenging points i can ponder. I think we both agree to let scripture speak and if we get into passages and hermeneutics we will probably just turn more circles and chase more rabbit trails on the matter.

 

[Skandelon]

Understood. And sorry for reading your signature.

 

[zrs6v4]

No problem just dont let it happen again.

 

[MB]

Certainly. There is nothing that ever happens that has not been ordained by God.

God made us do it all. He's guilty of our sins not us we had no choice. If this is true and it isn't, Then there never was temptation only preordination. We were all created to live a life with out purpose. Just going through the motions helplessly and unable to do anything else.

Even child molesting, rape and murder was in the plan. Sounds exactly like something the Pope came up with to excuse him self and his priest.

What about temptation Luke2427? does it really exist?
MB