Do you see discipleship and salvation as two separate yet related items?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Problem of Evil.
- Thread starter delizzle
- Start date
- Status
Do you see discipleship and salvation as two separate yet related items?
Van would have God the initiator and source of calamity.
That is not true.
God withholds support and approval and calamity is that which by the nature of evil occurs.
The Scriptures state in both Hebrews and Corinthians that all existence is at His pleasure by His authority. By removing his authority and pleasure evil (calamity) will result.
You need to read Delizzle's paper, he provides the scriptural quote totally refuting your bogus claim.
You cannot avoid this simple truth, your doctrine creates the so-called problem of evil. Choosing life brings glory to God and fulfills God's purpose of creation.
Thank you. I’ll drop some thoughts down as I read but I warn you I tend to drift.
From the title it appears to have the meaning that evil is compatible with God? So right out of the gate my first thought is to tell you that I reject most views of compatibilism whether it be divine determinism/human volition or good/evil as being anything but logically mutually exclusive. So anyway, I suspect you are referring to that God can exist and evil can exist rather than God’s nature can be compatible with evil, but just to say the title immediately perked up my ears. - I see you clarified in the last paragraph of the introduction, good!
I believe there is a profound truth to recognize behind your statement that “good must exist to make evil possible” which sets up the logical necessarily to maintain the truth in creation that God would of have to allow evil to exist for all the things associated with goodness and love to be seen in truth by the creatures in that creation. Also, as we know that “all God’s ways are judgment” (Gen 32:4) and He, and His judgment is always in Truth, Perfect and Only Good, then it logically follows that that there must be something to judge His Good (Omnibenevolence) against if His perfect nature of Good is to be seen and to be worshipped as Holy.
I like that you put “free will is one of the perfections that He gave to humans” and “the byproducts of free will is the possibility of using it for evil” which goes to show both, (1) God’s perfect and good creation consisting of creatures NOT designed to be as God, who by “aseity” His nature and attributes never change but rather a creature in development with the freedom to change along with the requirement of reaching a perfect level of good that can only be achieved by His mercy and grace through His Own sacrifice that we may be led by the Spirit of God.
Those differences in being I believe relates to the Trinitarian nature of God and the “Mediator” (between God and man, Jesus Christ) that takes place for the co-existence within time between the Divine which is perfectly Good having an unchanging Nature and the Human creature made in the likeness and image of God BUT with the ability (volition) to change his nature. And (2) this “byproduct” helps demonstrate the necessity for one to theologically maintain the truth of free will for the creatures to avoid attributing evil to God which ends leading into theological fatalism.
You ask, why doesn’t God stop evil and answer that some theologians suggest that even an omnipotent God has limitations. I’m not so sure that I see it as a limitation but rather something (allowance of evil) required to facilitate the truth within creation regarding the nature of the changeable man who is not a god and has been designed with free will and that of a Divine being who is perfect in all His ways. One might say God is limited by Truth but even then this perfect Truth is without limits according to the simple logic that something cannot be both True and Not True. I believe it is the Determinist that typically attempts to limit God’s Omnipotence based on his view of Omniscience beginning with putting God’s type of knowledge in a finite box and then limit His powers (Omnipotence) to be able design creatures with human volition while having Divine Providential Sovereignty over their actions rather than having to be Deterministically Sovereign over every action.
As per “disinterested faith” I often tell people along the lines that God “could” come down here right now with bang, like what you say you would need to know He is real, right in front of you and then you would believe, you’d have no choice to but to believe and you’d be scared to death of not believing but that’s not the kind of faith that God wants. God wants you to freely love Him in love of the truth, which He provides for every man so he is without excuse when the Day of Judgment comes, because He is Truth and love and all His ways are judgment in truth. That which brings faith which is forced is not through real love because it is not freely given, neither is it freely received.
Finally to know God is to trust Him and that He is Only Good. Therein, we know that the suffering we experience is necessary for the truth in the world in which we exist and should know it is related to the way we were designed with free will. God has a purpose and will someday wipe away our tears when we better understand what that purpose is when fulfilled. Imagine how great His love must be, so great that it is far beyond our full understanding but as a child of the Father in the spirit of bondage (Rom 8:15), we need not fear that bondage but should trust we’ll receive His love before, during and after this suffering.
Psa 34:18
(18) The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
I’m merely showing your own statement is in error.
I may or may not read his work, and then comment on his statements of thinking.
I will respond to your statement: “Choosing life brings glory...” in this manner.
At no place in Scriptures does one “choose life” without first being given ears to hear the gospel by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the choosing is not a matter decision but that of confession.
Your continued attempts of bestowing some spiritual attribute upon humankind reminds me of that dead carcass having life crawling all over it. Consumption of what is dead does not create life, only life creates life.
It would be good for those who hold to some “free will” to refute Jonathan Edwards work, “Freedom of the Will.”
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Jonathan Edwards Freedom of the Will.pdf
I doubt a single B.B. member has ever seriously worked through what he wrote and did anything to discredit it.
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Jonathan Edwards Freedom of the Will.pdf
I doubt a single B.B. member has ever seriously worked through what he wrote and did anything to discredit it.
Last edited:
delizzle
Active Member
Well...the whole "those who wish to save their life will lose it" part seems clear to me. I could be wrong though.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
The reason I ask is because it is often that the Disciples (the selected twelve) are considered saved. Yet, was not one of them the betrayer?
Therefore one can be a disciple (follower) yet not be redeemed.
Such (imo) are intellectualists and/or those looking for some benefit, personal enhancement, status, authority, ... they are those who although are disciples are not really “of us” and eventually will “depart from us.”
delizzle
Active Member
Thank you for the very through and informative feedback.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
No scripture will be posted to support the emboldened utter nonsense.
Folks, the link presents about 150 pages of nonsense, but appears to avoid presenting any scriptural support for the premise.
OTOH, Matthew 23:13 has Jesus teaching that people were entering the kingdom, thus having chosen to seek God. In order to support the bogus doctrine being asserted, God (1) regenerated them which enabled them to respond to the things of God, and then (2) allowed them to not be compelled by irresistible grace. Utter nonsense!
The problem of evil is a non-problem when viewed biblically, but cannot be resolved when viewed Calvinistically.
I figured the reading level exceeded the comprehension ability of some on the B.B., for it is certainly not a typical fifth grade level that grace the newest translations of Scripture, but such are written for a different audience.
Edwards is writing for scholars, and his level of writing is consistent with the highest comprehension levels of scholarship demands.
Surely, you are of the caliber of reading ability to read with comprehension and deep appreciation this hallmark work on “Freedom of the Will.”
Getting off the subject of P.O.E. here but might as well get my 2 cents in before moving on:
The Calvinist argument against genuine free will through defining freedom in compatibilist terms, which Edwards resorts to, when necessary, is old news and been addressed countless times. It has been demonstrated time and again that if one accepts Edwards’ position of "divine determinism", which is commonly argued, revised and parroted in Calvinist’ circles, then we must conclude that God is the author of sin.
Even the claim of Edwards’ work not being refuted is well known as a common old washed up rhetorical argument. - and almost comical to hear someone beg the question of their views being correct by challenging others to address the 150 pages of ...his writings. In fact, Whedon addressed Edwards’ deterministic "necessitarian" arguments back in the 19th century and concerning Edwards’s “true virtue” views showed how accepting it would do more harm toward the character of God than good.
“Daniel D. Whedon wrote a devastating critique of Edwards’ Freedom of the Will in 1864 entitled The Freedom of the Will as a Basis of Human Responsibility and a Divine Government. It is a shame that it has been largely ignored and forgotten in the debate over the will. SEA has provided a link to the book where it can be read or downloaded on google books. In addition to this, John Wagner has recently released an edited version of the book titled, Freedom of the Will: A Weslyan Response to Jonathan Edwards. I will be writing a review of Wagner’s edited version both here and at Amazon in the near future. I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in the topics of free will and determinism, or anyone who believes that Edwards has yet to be refuted, read this book!”
Today, a good understanding of basic logic and critical thinking skills is all that is really needed to refute Edwards’ long winded commonly heard compatibilistic views and ideas (second causes, free will/moral agency, absolute sovereignty/AKA Deterministic sovereignty, God’s foreknowledge thus Determinism, on and on … ) and in fact many Calvinists today have abandoned compatibilism for Hard/Hyper Determinism in order to be seen to logically maintain their Determinist positions.
The Calvinist argument against genuine free will through defining freedom in compatibilist terms, which Edwards resorts to, when necessary, is old news and been addressed countless times. It has been demonstrated time and again that if one accepts Edwards’ position of "divine determinism", which is commonly argued, revised and parroted in Calvinist’ circles, then we must conclude that God is the author of sin.
Even the claim of Edwards’ work not being refuted is well known as a common old washed up rhetorical argument. - and almost comical to hear someone beg the question of their views being correct by challenging others to address the 150 pages of ...his writings. In fact, Whedon addressed Edwards’ deterministic "necessitarian" arguments back in the 19th century and concerning Edwards’s “true virtue” views showed how accepting it would do more harm toward the character of God than good.
“Daniel D. Whedon wrote a devastating critique of Edwards’ Freedom of the Will in 1864 entitled The Freedom of the Will as a Basis of Human Responsibility and a Divine Government. It is a shame that it has been largely ignored and forgotten in the debate over the will. SEA has provided a link to the book where it can be read or downloaded on google books. In addition to this, John Wagner has recently released an edited version of the book titled, Freedom of the Will: A Weslyan Response to Jonathan Edwards. I will be writing a review of Wagner’s edited version both here and at Amazon in the near future. I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in the topics of free will and determinism, or anyone who believes that Edwards has yet to be refuted, read this book!”
Today, a good understanding of basic logic and critical thinking skills is all that is really needed to refute Edwards’ long winded commonly heard compatibilistic views and ideas (second causes, free will/moral agency, absolute sovereignty/AKA Deterministic sovereignty, God’s foreknowledge thus Determinism, on and on … ) and in fact many Calvinists today have abandoned compatibilism for Hard/Hyper Determinism in order to be seen to logically maintain their Determinist positions.
Last edited:
You should read my post again. I specifically said, new birth.
Last edited:
"Save(d)" does not always refer to salvation from the penaly of sin. In fact, it's seldom used that way.
delizzle
Active Member
Are you then suggesting that you can be saved an not reborn or reborn without being saved? [emoji848]
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
One of the clearest problems with Daniel D. Whedon is that, while holding onto the typical thinking (calvinist influenced) that the depraved fallen will can do nothing of itself, he attempts to show that humankind does have the ultimate deterministic say in the salvation.
The Wesley's struggled over this aspect in their desire to see lives changed, and came up with the human contrived scheme of "prevenient / preceding grace." Such is not in the Scriptures by statement or example, yet has been taught to countless as the truth. It is not. It was a way of attempting to work around the clear teaching and presentation of Scriptures so that humankind could show some work relating to their own salvation and eternal state.
Therefore, in order to refute Edwards, Whedon (a Wesleyan) uses what he is taught and must rely upon, the unscriptural "prevenient / preceding grace."
For those not familiar, a typical presentation of "prevenient/preceding grace" is that grace used by God to lift the person (by the grace of God) into such a state that without external or internal influence humankind can accept or reject salvation.
Do not be mistaken in this important matter.
At no time is such grace even alluded to in the Scriptures or even described. Yet, upon such an unfounded approach and therefore biased, Whedon attempts to refute Edwards.
It is troubling that Ben, by citing Whedon, is willing to accept what God does not even suggest or example, in order to attempt such dismissal of Edwards.
There has been no success in refuting Edwards' work. Whedon's attempt is only successful and praised among those who also would add to the Grace of God what God does not offer.
Those that would endorse Whedon on this matter do so on the basis that their own bias driven desire and must oblige accepting what is not Scriptural and therefore a failed argument.
Troubling? Yes. But also expected.
Which, as you pointed out, is the crux of the prevenient grace position.
As always happens in a thread of this length, they drift away from OP.
Prevenient grace is an unscriptural doctrine that attempts to portray God as both willing and able to prevent evil (or at least to arrest its progress). I agree with the statement that God is both willing and able to stop and prevent evil, although I do not subscribe to the idea that His intent is to do so this side of eternity. Evil presents a stark contrast to God's smiling providence. It is the antheses of God's holy character. It is the ever-present foe that the book of Proverbs warns against. Since it is the opposite of what God is, it amplifies God's character the way darkness amplifies a bright light (John 1:5). God is both willing to stop and prevent evil through His Son and God has determined to do that as an act of judgment before the ushering in of the eternal state (Rev. 20:11-15).
A question that was not asked in the OP is why does God tolerate evil? Why does He allow it to exist? While the Bible does not explicitly say, we are given a hint in Romans:
Romans 9:22-23 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
Last edited:
- Status