Theodicy

[Skandelon]

Scandal defined sin in another thread as a deficiency.

You are not allowed to quote or even refer to what you think I said anymore. You get it wrong about 98.6% of the time. I did speak of man's deficiency once but it wasn't in the context of defining sin.

Stick with exact quotes or leave me out of your absurd posts.

 

[humblethinker]

I stumbled upon the Puritan thread discussing this exact subject, but ironically the Arminians were making the case that evil was merely the absense of good. Here is the reply of one Calvinist:
...

Cold is the absence of thermal energy, not heat. Individual particles of matter have kinetic energy and are bouncing around (or wiggling around for solids), and that is thermal energy. Cold is indeed what we call having less of this energy. Technically, heat is the transfer of thermal energy and so is not the same thing as thermal energy, so cold is not the absence of *heat*.

It seems to me that comparing this to evil and good without any proof that good and evil have a similar relationship as cold and hot is stupid. You could compare any pair of opposites to any other pair of opposites, and use that to prove all manner of ridiculous things.

I thought these might help to see there is more to this matter...

:thumbs::thumbs:
I was confident that the logic he was using was not correct but wasn't sure how to word it... thanks for finding the words for me!

 

[Luke2427]

I stumbled upon the Puritan thread discussing this exact subject, but ironically the Arminians were making the case that evil was merely the absense of good. Here is the reply of one Calvinist:



Here is another...



and...


I thought these might help to see there is more to this matter from both perspectives, but if Luke wants to keep dismissing my statements and claiming victory to make himself feel better, rather than having an honest discussion on the subject, let him at it. I'd rather discuss it with someone like you, Don, who seems to actually want to engage the subject.

You're the one not discussing it. You dropped out about three pages ago when all your questions were answered.

All you have been doing since is making claims like "nothing can't cause something" without warranting them.

That's not debate.

And your position is now so full of holes and thus so structurally unsound that you have resorted to other debate sites to find people who are certainly not authorities in any of these areas to support your crumbling position.

Nothing can and DOES cause billions of things to happen every day when that nothing is the result of the REMOVAL of some necessary thing.

Hunger is nothing but the absence of nourishment. Hunger itself has no mass, no space, it is not emotion, it has no personality. But it is deadly.
But all hunger is is the ABSENCE of nutrition where it is needed.
Death is nothing but the absence of life.
Cold is nothing but the absence of heat (or thermal energy or whatever you want to call it).
Darkness is nothing but the absence of light.

And these things and thousands of more things that are nothings which all are the result of the privation of needful things CAUSE MILLIONS of things to happen every day.

Evil is nothing but the absence of good in the same way. Evil as privation is the oldest known Christian theodicy.

A VERY small child could get this. The reason you do not get it is not because you lack the intellect- you do not get it because it DESTROYS your false theology and you can't BEAR to face that.

 

[Winman]

Luke, your theory does not explain how Satan, the fallen angels, and Adam and Eve sinned. God declared all his creation "very good" and yet Satan, the fallen angels, and Adam and Eve sinned.

How does your theory explain that?

 

[Don]

What caused the accident? Nothing.
What caused the death? Nothing.
What caused evil? Nothing.

Or, as Luke's most recent post said it: "Nothing but. . . ."

I can totally see why the analogies muddle things up; and I have to admit, I'm hesitant to attempt this discussion with my 12-yr old son, much less a group of 2nd or 3rd graders.

BUT SKAN, you're missing the "big picture" point of Luke's position: you're asking about where evil and evil intentions came from, and he's told you--they derive from an incapability of good. The incapability comes from good either not being present to begin with, or having been removed.

The crux of Luke's position lies with "opposites": light or dark, hot or cold, good or evil. If you don't have one, then only the other remains. I believe his position allows for no middle ground, which kinda goes against quantum theory, but that's me being facetious and introducing a rabbit trail we may not want to follow. . . . ;o

Winman, this addresses your question, too.

 

[Winman]

Opposites are not nothing. Darkness is not nothing, it is absence of those light frequencies we can see, but there is much radiation in darkness.

The origin of evil is free will. Satan could have remained obedient to God as many angels did, but chose to rebel. The same with Adam and Eve.

It is Calvinism's obsession in denying free will that forces it to perform mental gymnastics to explain sin. Satan and men were created as rational and moral creatures that can make choices, good or evil. It is really that simple.

 

[Skandelon]

Opposites are not nothing. Darkness is not nothing, it is absence of those light frequencies we can see, but there is much radiation in darkness.

The origin of evil is free will. Satan could have remained obedient to God as many angels did, but chose to rebel. The same with Adam and Eve.

It is Calvinism's obsession in denying free will that forces it to perform mental gymnastics to explain sin. Satan and men were created as rational and moral creatures that can make choices, good or evil. It is really that simple.

I think that about sums it up. :thumbsup:

I'm done trying to have a discussion with Luke. He makes everything personal and turns most every post off the topic and on to non-sensical and unfounded critiques, typically followed by some kind of a puffed up peacock like display of prowess. I try to get through by quoting from some fellow Calvinistic posters and he just ridicules me and them instead of dealing with the content.

I've never put anyone on the ignore list before, but I think he has left me no choice...

 

[Skandelon]

you're asking about where evil and evil intentions came from, and he's told you--they derive from an incapability of good.

But "the incapability of good" is not a person. It may be a condition of an agent, but an "incapability" is not the originator of the intent. It's either Satan under the condition of being incapable of good, or it is God.

Who originated the evil intent? Satan with the incapability of doing good? Is that right?

The crux of Luke's position lies with "opposites": light or dark, hot or cold, good or evil.

I will discuss this with you, but until Luke can leave the attitude and his non-sense at the door we are finished.

 

[quantumfaith]

But "the incapability of good" is not a person. It may be a condition of an agent, but an "incapability" is not the originator of the intent. It's either Satan under the condition of being incapable of good, or it is God.

Who originated the evil intent? Satan with the incapability of doing good? Is that right?

I will discuss this with you, but until Luke can leave the attitude and his non-sense at the door we are finished.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Aaron]

You are not allowed to quote or even refer to what you think I said anymore. You get it wrong about 98.6% of the time. I did speak of man's deficiency once but it wasn't in the context of defining sin.

Stick with exact quotes or leave me out of your absurd posts.

You said the ability for one to choose to reject Christ (i.e. sin) comes from their deficiency. But you never answered the question, a deficiency of what?

So, you see, you define evil the exact same way that Luke is doing.

 

[Aaron]

Oh. And here's that thread. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73312&page=6

All but your little circle of waffling sidekicks will clearly see that I pretty much pierce your subterfuge and evasive responses.

 

[Aaron]

Well, you all pretty much see it too, but won't admit it. :type:

 

[Skandelon]

You said the ability for one to choose to reject Christ (i.e. sin) comes from their deficiency. But you never answered the question, a deficiency of what?

So, you see, you define evil the exact same way that Luke is doing.

Aaron, you do know that I believe in contra-causal freewill and Luke doesn't right? That is a significant difference you know.

If asked my view regarding the origin of evil... the answer is the same as Winman just explained. We affirm that God has created free moral agent's who are mutable and fallible....FREE. The ability to choose right from wrong (good from evil) and originate evil intents is what separates them from the animals as MORAL creatures. So, I assure you that Luke's definition, or at least the intent behind his words, is nothing like mine. He is forced, if he is consistent, to claim God originated the evil intent of Satan (through second causes,) but that is okay because He did it for a good reason. I just wish he'd come out and say it and stop with all these cold/heat analogies.

 

[Don]

I'm not sure that Luke would agree that God caused Satan's evil intentions; I think he would say that God removed good from Satan, or that Satan was suffering from an absence of good to begin with; and therefore, unable to have good intentions; and therefore, capable only of evil intentions (the opposites thing again).

However, as you point out, this would appear to make God an indirect cause of evil, either for removing good from Satan, or for not giving it to him to begin with.

 

[Don]

...but then we have the argument that I brought up in response to EWF's post, back around page 5: If God does it, and it's worked for good, then is it truly evil?

With the ultimate (hyper?) conclusion of that thought train being, if it's all worked for good, then is anything truly evil? (I'm confusing myself at this point....)
​

 

[Aaron]

If asked my view regarding the origin of evil... the answer is the same as Winman just explained. We affirm that God has created free moral agent's who are mutable and fallible....FREE.

Yes. You keep saying that. But a better word is "corruptible." God did not create Adam with the "ability" to sin. He created him good, but He didn't create him incorruptible. Saying that one has the ability to sin is the wrong way to say it. It puts it in a positive light and smacks of Satan's words in the Garden. "You will have the same ability as God, knowing good and evil."

No one would "choose" to disobey God unless corruption had crept in. And once something is corrupt, it cannot obey. That is not freedom. That is bondage.

The ability to choose right from wrong (good from evil) and originate evil intents is what separates them from the animals as MORAL creatures.

No, it's what makes us sinners. Man was not created with that knowledge, and didn't desire it until he was corrupted.

So, I assure you that Luke's definition, or at least the intent behind his words, is nothing like mine. He is forced, if he is consistent, to claim God originated the evil intent of Satan (through second causes,) but that is okay because He did it for a good reason. I just wish he'd come out and say it and stop with all these cold/heat analogies.

I think I know what Luke is trying to say, but he is saying it wrong. He's trying to make God's ways answerable to a carnal sense of justice. He's saying that the ends justify the means. I'm sure that's not his intent, but that's the effect.

Knowing good and evil is a divine trait, and God has for eternity known good and evil even "before" its advent in heaven and earth. He knows it and is incorruptible. He ordained its advent and cannot be charged with it. Because He is God and His ways are higher than ours. As far as the heavens are above the earth, His ways are higher than ours. We cannot yet even begin to approach that knowledge, yet you want Him answerable to you?

But back to the topic hand. Evil is a corruption. It is the loss of something, not the addition of something. As was said to Belshazzar, Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. Wanting what?

You say the reason one sins is because of a deficiency. Again, a deficiency of what?

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not sure that Luke would agree that God caused Satan's evil intentions; I think he would say that God removed good from Satan, or that Satan was suffering from an absence of good to begin with; and therefore, unable to have good intentions; and therefore, capable only of evil intentions (the opposites thing again).

This ignores the fact the the intent had to have an origin with a PERSON, not a incapacity or a void. Those things describe the environment of the agent, they can't originate anything. Either God or Satan first originated the intent to do evil.

I say Satan did. What do YOU say?

However, as you point out, this would appear to make God an indirect cause of evil, either for removing good from Satan, or for not giving it to him to begin with.

Well, Luke has argued in the past that God is the indirect cause, but he claims its not evil if He does if for the right reasons.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes. You keep saying that. But a better word is "corruptible." God did not create Adam with the "ability" to sin. He created him good, but He didn't create him incorruptible. Saying that one has the ability to sin is the wrong way to say it. It puts it in a positive light and smacks of Satan's words in the Garden. "You will have the same ability as God, knowing good and evil."

I'm fine with that term, it doesn't really change anything I've argued worth taking issue over...

No one would "choose" to disobey God unless corruption had crept in. And once something is corrupt, it cannot obey. That is not freedom. That is bondage.

Here is where I think you take a leap not supported in the text. As you just quoted, after the fall Adam is now knowing, "good and evil," but it appears you think that fallen man only knows evil. Adam and Eve hiding in the garden obeyed God after they sinned. We see them interacting and God explains to them the results of their fall. Nothing in that list is mentioned regarding men's inability to hear God's appeal of reconciliation and respond.

No, it's what makes us sinners.

Both/and NOT either/or

I think I know what Luke is trying to say, but he is saying it wrong. He's trying to make God's ways answerable to a carnal sense of justice. He's saying that the ends justify the means. I'm sure that's not his intent, but that's the effect.

Tell him that and good luck getting him to listen.

Knowing good and evil is a divine trait, and God has for eternity known good and evil even "before" its advent in heaven and earth. He knows it and is incorruptible. He ordained its advent and cannot be charged with it. Because He is God and His ways are higher than ours. As far as the heavens are above the earth, His ways are higher than ours. We cannot yet even begin to approach that knowledge

I love that answer. Sounds a lot like what I said to Luke several months ago :thumbsup:

yet you want Him answerable to you?

Nope, just want to show that both camps appeal to mystery at some level in this discussion. When we appeal to mystery of how free moral choices are made Calvinists demean and attack, yet they too must appeal to mystery ultimately.

Luke went so far as to attempt to dogmatically argue that God doesn't really ever make choices, as if that is something so much within his comprehension that he can venture beyond the revelation of scripture into speculation based on his limited views.

You say the reason one sins is because of a deficiency. Again, a deficiency of what?

He wasn't made incorruptible, he was made free. He is the reason for his choice. That is what makes HIM the free moral agent who is accountable for what he does. How he comes to make his choice is mysterious and beyond our full comprehension, just as how God came to choose to save you and not Hitler...somethings we can't fully explain...His ways are higher than ours.

 

[humblethinker]

No one would "choose" to disobey God unless corruption had crept in.

Your use of the phrase "crept in" is funny to me... I am forced to the image of 'something' but logically know that it is really 'nothing'. An then, the idea that it "crept" as though it had a sinister will of it's own... does this really reflect what you believe? As I understand your beliefe it doesn't (of couse I could be wrong though).

But back to the topic hand. Evil is a corruption. It is the loss of something, not the addition of something. As was said to Belshazzar, Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. Wanting what?

Would you (or anyone else) address Galations 5 regarding your idea of corruption? In the example Paul employs, the yeast is an additive and it is a 'something', it is not a 'nothing' or the absence of something.

 

[Aaron]

Nope, just want to show that both camps appeal to mystery at some level in this discussion. When we appeal to mystery of how free moral choices are made Calvinists demean and attack, yet they too must appeal to mystery ultimately.

You on the level of man, we much higher. There is not much left to mystery concerning us. Where it gets mysterious is when it gets other-worldly, as in the world of spirits. Those things are incomprehensible. So we simply accept the things that God has revealed about them.

The natural man, on the other hand, is pretty much naked and exposed to our sight. Even the marrow and bones. It's not too difficult to wrap our minds around him.

So, though you call it mystery, you're really just closing your eyes to the contradictions in your system.

He wasn't made incorruptible, he was made free. He is the reason for his choice.

The "freedom" to choose to do evil is not freedom. The flesh is corruptible. Adam could no more prevent his own corruption than iron can prevent its own rust. And despite DHK's imaginations in another thread, Adam was not a partaker of the divine nature.

That is what makes HIM the free moral agent who is accountable for what he does.

Again, only in your carnal sense of justice. You think justice demands that a man has the power to do otherwise, but it doesn't. Will the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? You need to understand that it's the Potter who has the power over the clay.

How he comes to make his choice is mysterious and beyond our full comprehension, just as how God came to choose to save you and not Hitler...somethings we can't fully explain...His ways are higher than ours.

You see? You equate Adam's way with God's way, and you deny that you think of God as a man?