Theodicy

[Benjamin]

The problem with your premise is that God's righteous judgment over His creations shows His benevolent nature, but does not address how someone on the receiving end of His wrath would perceive the action. They might call evil what Deuteronomy 32:4 says is good. Good and Evil are in the eye of the beholder.

I stand on the premise that from the beginning men sought to know good and evil and to be the judge between them, this goes to not only explain the reality of free will/volition of the creature, but also how that the ways of God are righteous judgment and the necessity that He is without moral evil. The problem for those that think/wish to attribute evil to the nature of God comes from that which originates in pride from within their knowledge (Gen 3:23) yet, there is only One that is perfectly Good and He is the Righteous Judge of all things. Some can not willingly bow to that concept of Divine existence (of God being Omnibenevolent) so they attempt to side step it or discount it in many ways (yet the Truth is there so in pride they might claim to be forced to believe, not to have the ability of volition, will deny or reassign the origin of evil and thereby dispute true creaturely responsibility, claim not to have the ability to reason, and as Luke says...I could go on and on and on… )…but God has His ways to sort “it” (the truth concerning responsibility and judgment, and He makes that judgment through His real nature of Omnibenevolent grace offered through real ability of faith that all creatures have the ability to obtain by His Loving divine design and thereby no creature has an excuse but to really respond in love of the truth of God’s Goodness or be condemned) out, again, Deut 32:4. I trust God is Only Good and His judgment is real and righteous. My eyes behold a God that is Omnibenevolent and thereby full of Grace for all His creatures through the faith with comes from love of the Truth (God is Truth in Love). I have died of that aforementioned pride of being judge between good and evil because I have seen the light of who He is and have believed in an Omnibenevolent God. I love this Truth with all my heart and soul because He is Love.

Please understand, I am not saying God is not good. I am saying is if you are on the receiving end of disaster, you will think the disaster is bad or evil. But that natural occurrence, say a tornado, is part of God's "good" creation.

But there is another aspect to "the problem of evil" and that is God allowing people to make choices that result in evil. Here we must consider God's purpose in creating mankind with the capacity of autonomous choice. We were created to glorify God, and when we turn from our way to God's way by our autonomous choice, we bring glory to God, fulfilling God's purpose of creation. Now if God did not allow "autonomous choice" we would not bring glory to God when we made that choice. Therefore, from God's perspective, our choices are "good" in that He would not have created us without that capacity. And God is righteous in His judgment, and so those who receive justice in the afterlife will receive perfect punishment for those "evil" choices in the eyes of God.

I don't think we're far apart and have put a lot of thought in God's purposes. I openly state that God is Only Good and His creation is very good, (Gen 1:31) for only good can come from Him. He is without moral evil (Deut 32:4). He allows evil to exist but is never the cause of it, the agency of evil can not or should not be attributed to Him any way by those who truly know Him, those that understand that His nature is Only Good and know that He truly does exist in and because of knowing and believing in love of that truth, in that sense I say faith is a gift. Concerning the P.O.E. it is common that the Calvinist cannot/or will not attribute the existence of God as Only being Good (Onmibenevolent) to the skeptic, but gladly I can and do.

 

[Don]

Okay, I gotta say that I actually lean more towards what Luke is saying in this thread; his problem is his use of analogies that are muddying the waters terribly.

It isn't the darkness that is the cause of an accident; it is the inability to see because of the darkness that causes the accident. If the driver stopped and proceeded no further, there would be no accident.

The darkness analogy, however, provides for the driver to make a choice, and thus doen't fit the hyper-calvinist view that the driver has no choice but to continue driving.

To keep this conversation on Luke's point, focus on the definition of evil: the absence of good. Without good, the only choice is evil. The only intent is what's best for the individual, with no regard for others or God. I believe this is the point Luke is trying to make. Please feel to correct me, and/or clarify further.

 

[Iconoclast]

Of course respected theologians of all stripes through the ages have thought it was worthwhile discussing. But perhaps you are smarter than all of them.

This is an epidemic our contemporary culture faces. EVERYBODY who can quote John 3:16 is smarter than all the theologians who ever lived combined.

:applause::laugh::thumbsup::applause:

 

[Iconoclast]

God gave the angels and men free will because it would be immoral to do otherwise.

Nothing in scripture says free will exists..so your whole premise is false to begin with.

 

[Grasshopper]

http://thereignofchrist.com/a-biblical-theodicy/

A Biblical Theodicy

 

[Don]

:applause::laugh::thumbsup::applause:

Not sure why you're applauding Luke on this one. It was a personal, derogatory attack.

The truth of the matter is, there's a chance--however miniscule--that the individual actually is smarter than all the theologians that came before him. I may not agree with this person; Luke certainly doesn't; and apparently you don't. But Calvin had to defend his position with his contemporaries of the time; Luthor had to defend his position with his contemporaries of the time; etc., etc.

Frankly, Icon, you're one of the smarter individuals on this board; to applaud a personal attack on someone...well, I expect better of you. I hope you expect better of yourself.

 

[Don]

I am going to operate off of two distinct premises I believe to be correct....tell me if I'm off base.

1. He is the Most Holy Sovereign God who cannot do wrong, and He cannot be above the law or rule of principle of His own perfect nature or character, which is a part of Himself, and is infinite light (or truth and holiness) and love.

2. It not only stains the holiness, but it also belittles the wisdom and the power of God to say that He can govern His creatures only by instigating and compelling them to sin; it represents Him as a mere manipulator, instead of an incomparable Sovereign, who perfectly foresees and perfectly controls even their own abominable wickedness to the manifestation of His glory.

Am I in the ballpark?

EWF - the final part of your 2nd point: Here's what has to be explained. If God is absolute good, then how does God control even their own abominable wickedness?

The explanation from Luke (that all things are worked to His glory) doesn't satisfy those that believe that God is ultimate good; because if, as Luke stated, the definition of evil is the absence of good, which is God removing his goodness (see Page 2 of this thread, post #19), how can God tolerate evil, much less control the abominable wickedness of His creations? The only answer is that whatever God does is not evil.

A possible answer is: if God does evil (orders the murder of women and children), then it is *our* perception that this action is evil, not God's. In other words, if we do it, it's evil; if He does it, it's not evil.

To fit the argument, we have to change the human perception. If God orders His people to murder women and children, and we keep in mind that God doesn't work evil--He only works things to His glory--then when we follow His commands, we are not working evil, even if others use their perception to classify our actions as evil.

This necessarily can lead to a "hyper" conclusion that whatever we do, if we can justify that it's from God, then it's not evil. And I think we can all see the trap that leads to.

The other confusion point about this is, if God controls the abominable wickedness of His creations, but whatever He does is not evil because it is worked to His glory, then how can we say that anyone is evil? They're only doing what God controls.

I welcome more education and instruction from everyone on this subject; I may have missed some alternatives that will put things in a different light. As it stands, the conclusion I draw is that this argument hinges on the difference between and understanding of God's sovereign (or perfect) will and permissive will.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not sure why you're applauding Luke on this one. It was a personal, derogatory attack.

The truth of the matter is, there's a chance--however miniscule--that the individual actually is smarter than all the theologians that came before him. I may not agree with this person; Luke certainly doesn't; and apparently you don't. But Calvin had to defend his position with his contemporaries of the time; Luthor had to defend his position with his contemporaries of the time; etc., etc.

Frankly, Icon, you're one of the smarter individuals on this board; to applaud a personal attack on someone...well, I expect better of you. I hope you expect better of yourself.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

Okay, I gotta say that I actually lean more towards what Luke is saying in this thread; his problem is his use of analogies that are muddying the waters terribly.

It isn't the darkness that is the cause of an accident; it is the inability to see because of the darkness that causes the accident. If the driver stopped and proceeded no further, there would be no accident.

The darkness analogy, however, provides for the driver to make a choice, and thus doen't fit the hyper-calvinist view that the driver has no choice but to continue driving.

To keep this conversation on Luke's point, focus on the definition of evil: the absence of good. Without good, the only choice is evil. The only intent is what's best for the individual, with no regard for others or God. I believe this is the point Luke is trying to make. Please feel to correct me, and/or clarify further.

This is silly.

What caused the inability to see, Don?

The darkness of course.

Your post is the only thing on this thread muddying anything.

 

[Luke2427]

So, suppose I create a robot and remove all good from it thus DIRECTLY causing it to want to kill the next person it sees. How am I not culpable for that?

Ultimately you are.

Or, if you don't like that analogy. Suppose I have a child and give him a drug removing all desire to do right thus causing him to lie, cheat, hate and kill? How am I not culpable for that?

This analogy doesn't work because you are not yourself the source of all goodness as God is the source of all goodness.

And God is not INTRODUCING something that causes one to do evil.

He is doing to opposite of introducing something.

He is removing something- the opposite of giving.

His removing himself is not analogous to him introducing something like a drug.

You have God as the direct cause because he is the creator of the agent who necessarily will do evil in a vacuum and the creator of the vacuum in which the agent lives. What else is there on which to base culpability except God?

Everything following BECAUSE in your statement is the dead level OPPOSITE of direct cause.

Being the creator of the agent who necessarily will do evil is the VERY ESSENCE of secondary cause which is the dead level OPPOSITE of direct cause.

But what you have just done is finally for the first time define what Edwards and MOST reputable scholars have believed concerning permissive will and secondary causes.

You defined it well- now if you would just match your definition with the right terms you'd be well on your way.

 

[Winman]

Nothing in scripture says free will exists..so your whole premise is false to begin with.

Baloney, God himself said men have their "own voluntary will" in Leviticus 1:3. To say otherwise is to directly contradict the word of God.

 

[kyredneck]

Yes, light and good are things.

Wherever the Spirit is present, as in a heart that has had the law written upon it, there is light and good.

 

[Don]

This is silly.

What caused the inability to see, Don?

The darkness of course.

Your post is the only thing on this thread muddying anything.

Luke, you're smart; don't focus on the fact that you and I barely agree on anything. Focus on your analogy. You're trying to "place the blame" on the darkness.

In your own words, darkness is nothing but the absence of light (page 3 of this thread); therefore, darkness cannot be the direct cause of anything; it can only cause us to make choices. For example, the bus went over the cliff because the driver couldn't see the cliff; if the driver couldn't see, why did he continue driving?

The darkness is the indirect cause of the unsafe condition. The direct cause of the accident is the driver's decision to continue driving in unsafe conditions. To say that the darkness caused the accident is to deny the driver's unwise decision, and his multiple choices that could have avoided the accident.

Now, let's take note: Of my entire post, you chose to focus on what you thought of my criticism of your analogy. How about providing an analysis of the rest of the post?

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, you're smart; don't focus on the fact that you and I barely agree on anything. Focus on your analogy. You're trying to "place the blame" on the darkness.

In your own words, darkness is nothing but the absence of light (page 3 of this thread); therefore, darkness cannot be the direct cause of anything; it can only cause us to make choices. For example, the bus went over the cliff because the driver couldn't see the cliff; if the driver couldn't see, why did he continue driving?

The darkness is the indirect cause of the unsafe condition. The direct cause of the accident is the driver's decision to continue driving in unsafe conditions. To say that the darkness caused the accident is to deny the driver's unwise decision, and his multiple choices that could have avoided the accident.

Now, let's take note: Of my entire post, you chose to focus on what you thought of my criticism of your analogy. How about providing an analysis of the rest of the post?

Well stated, Don! :thumbsup: I've been attempting to make this point for months, but you did a much clearer job. I hope it is understood now. Thanks!

 

[JesusFan]

I don't have to because I said no such silly thing.

I did not say that evil is SOMETHING that came from nothing.

I said evil is NOTHING much the same as dark is nothing and cold is nothing and dry is nothing and a MILLION other things are actually NOTHING but the absence of other things.

Can nothing cause something to happen to something? Absolutely.

Darkness can cause a school bus full of elementary age children to fly off a cliff to their terrible deaths.

Is darkness something? Nope. It is actually NOTHING. It is just a word we use to describe the ABSENCE of light.

Can cold cause horrible things? Sure. But cold is not actually something.

It has no mass, no space, etc... It is not energy, it is not thought, it is not emotion, it has no personality. It is simply the absence of heat.

But it causes all kinds of HORRIBLE things to all kinds of things that are ACTUAL things- crops, people, etc...

Evil can cause all kinds of horrible things- but is evil an actual thing? No. It is the absence of good.

That is simple enough for a child to understand.

If you cannot understand it, it is not because you lack the intellect- it is because you lack the objectivity.

Didn't God though have Evil already 'worked" into His master Plan from Eternity past?

That God would use Evil in the sense that all things that He predestine to pass for His glory would come to pass?

That He would be working all things so that despite the Falls of satan /adam, that God would bring everything together in the End for His glory?

 

[Van]

Reply to Benjamin

I stand on the premise that from the beginning men sought to know good and evil and to be the judge between them, this goes to not only explain the reality of free will/volition of the creature, but also how that the ways of God are righteous judgment and the necessity that He is without moral evil. The problem for those that think/wish to attribute evil to the nature of God comes from that which originates in pride from within their knowledge (Gen 3:23) yet, there is only One that is perfectly Good and He is the Righteous Judge of all things. Some can not willingly bow to that concept of Divine existence (of God being Omnibenevolent) so they attempt to side step it or discount it in many ways (yet the Truth is there so in pride they might claim to be forced to believe, not to have the ability of volition, will deny or reassign the origin of evil and thereby dispute true creaturely responsibility, claim not to have the ability to reason, and as Luke says...I could go on and on and on… )…but God has His ways to sort “it” (the truth concerning responsibility and judgment, and He makes that judgment through His real nature of Omnibenevolent grace offered through real ability of faith that all creatures have the ability to obtain by His Loving divine design and thereby no creature has an excuse but to really respond in love of the truth of God’s Goodness or be condemned) out, again, Deut 32:4. I trust God is Only Good and His judgment is real and righteous. My eyes behold a God that is Omnibenevolent and thereby full of Grace for all His creatures through the faith with comes from love of the Truth (God is Truth in Love). I have died of that aforementioned pride of being judge between good and evil because I have seen the light of who He is and have believed in an Omnibenevolent God. I love this Truth with all my heart and soul because He is Love.



I don't think we're far apart and have put a lot of thought in God's purposes. I openly state that God is Only Good and His creation is very good, (Gen 1:31) for only good can come from Him. He is without moral evil (Deut 32:4). He allows evil to exist but is never the cause of it, the agency of evil can not or should not be attributed to Him any way by those who truly know Him, those that understand that His nature is Only Good and know that He truly does exist in and because of knowing and believing in love of that truth, in that sense I say faith is a gift. Concerning the P.O.E. it is common that the Calvinist cannot/or will not attribute the existence of God as Only being Good (Onmibenevolent) to the skeptic, but gladly I can and do.

If I understood your post, we pretty much agree. I would never use the term Omnibenevolent, because of the way it is used (unbiblically) in Theodicy discussions. God brings calamity and allows men to do evil in His eyes. But from God's perspective, His treatment of mankind is "good" in that it suits His purpose of creation. God Bless

 

[Van]

Baloney, God himself said men have their "own voluntary will" in Leviticus 1:3. To say otherwise is to directly contradict the word of God.

Sadly, Calvinism, at least the TULI part is a complete contradiction of the word of God. Calvinists tell us a "free will offering" does not mean an offering made without compulsion. Just another rewrite of scripture.

Scripture - God sets before us the choice of life or death. Calvinist rewrite, God sets before some, the "choice" of life only, and before others the "choice" of death only. Note that this premise has to rewrite the meaning of "choice" to include non-choice. Sad indeed.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, you're smart; don't focus on the fact that you and I barely agree on anything. Focus on your analogy. You're trying to "place the blame" on the darkness.

In your own words, darkness is nothing but the absence of light (page 3 of this thread); therefore, darkness cannot be the direct cause of anything; it can only cause us to make choices. For example, the bus went over the cliff because the driver couldn't see the cliff; if the driver couldn't see, why did he continue driving?

The darkness is the indirect cause of the unsafe condition. The direct cause of the accident is the driver's decision to continue driving in unsafe conditions. To say that the darkness caused the accident is to deny the driver's unwise decision, and his multiple choices that could have avoided the accident.

Now, let's take note: Of my entire post, you chose to focus on what you thought of my criticism of your analogy. How about providing an analysis of the rest of the post?

Darkness is the DIRECT cause of the invisibility of the cliff in your analogy.

Darkness is nothing- that is not up for debate. We all understand that darkness is the absence of light and nothing else.

But this darkness which is nothing DIRECTLY caused something- invisibility.

What you don't seem to be willing to admit is that which everybody knows- privation can cause things. Evil is privation of good. Darkness is privation of light. Cold is privation of heat.

Take the last one. Cold is nothing but the absence of heat. Yet cold DIRECTLY causes frostbite.

Now you could muddy the waters and develop some illustration of somebody who "CHOSE" to climb the mountain where the cold is and then say that it was their CHOICE that directly caused the frostbite, but that would be silly for two reasons.

1- Choice in that scenario is the SECONDARY cause of the frostbite. Cold is the DIRECT cause.

2- That illustration is not representative of every possible scenario where cold can cause frostbite.
For one of innumerable examples that could be given: What if an ice age suddenly hit. Did the jungle man's choices in the Amazon directly cause his frostbite?

The point is clear.

Nothing can be the direct cause of horrible things- particularly when nothing is a vacuum which is the result of the absenting of something needful, beneficial, etc...

Evil is nothing but the absence of good.

When good vacates a heart evil remains. Just so, when heat vacates a place cold remains.

Both can do unspeakable harm- the former far more than the latter because "good" is far nobler and more needful than "heat".

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sadly, Calvinism, at least the TULI part is a complete contradiction of the word of God. Calvinists tell us a "free will offering" does not mean an offering made without compulsion. Just another rewrite of scripture.

Scripture - God sets before us the choice of life or death. Calvinist rewrite, God sets before some, the "choice" of life only, and before others the "choice" of death only. Note that this premise has to rewrite the meaning of "choice" to include non-choice. Sad indeed.

:laugh:Fiddlesticks :laugh:

 

[Don]

Darkness is the DIRECT cause of the invisibility of the cliff in your analogy.

Darkness is nothing- that is not up for debate. We all understand that darkness is the absence of light and nothing else.

But this darkness which is nothing DIRECTLY caused something- invisibility.

What you don't seem to be willing to admit is that which everybody knows- privation can cause things. Evil is privation of good. Darkness is privation of light. Cold is privation of heat.

Take the last one. Cold is nothing but the absence of heat. Yet cold DIRECTLY causes frostbite.

Now you could muddy the waters and develop some illustration of somebody who "CHOSE" to climb the mountain where the cold is and then say that it was their CHOICE that directly caused the frostbite, but that would be silly for two reasons.

1- Choice in that scenario is the SECONDARY cause of the frostbite. Cold is the DIRECT cause.

2- That illustration is not representative of every possible scenario where cold can cause frostbite.
For one of innumerable examples that could be given: What if an ice age suddenly hit. Did the jungle man's choices in the Amazon directly cause his frostbite?

The point is clear.

Nothing can be the direct cause of horrible things- particularly when nothing is a vacuum which is the result of the absenting of something needful, beneficial, etc...

Evil is nothing but the absence of good.

When good vacates a heart evil remains. Just so, when heat vacates a place cold remains.

Both can do unspeakable harm- the former far more than the latter because "good" is far nobler and more needful than "heat".

Luke - your cold analogy is better than your darkness analogy.

Analogies aside, go read post #42, and compare it to the parts of your response that I bolded.