Calvinism and the origin of evil

The truth of the matter is, He has never ignored anyone. God sent his son with an undying selfish love to die for the sins of all mankind, for he loved each and every one. He never ignored them, not even one. To say that he would ignore one individual based on one's theology is the height of arrogance.

God decreed that Christ would die for the sins of mankind before the foundation of the world. He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. He also knew that mankind would fall; that Adam would rebel against Him inspite of all his love toward him, and that sin nature would pass on to the rest of mankind. That did not diminish his love toward mankind.

He knew what He would do before hand, according to his own planning; his own omniscience. He would send his Son. He would pay the penalty for the sins of the world, that all who would believe in him would be saved. It does not take correct theology for that to happen. It does not take Calvinism for that to happen.

However, God never decreed for evil men to do evil things. Evil men chose to do evil out of their evil hearts. Jesus himself stated as much.
"Out of an evil heart comes evil things."
It is our choice to do evil. It is our choice to receive or reject Christ. No one forces us, not even the Holy Spirit. Grace is resistible. Stephen stated that it was so. One can resist the Holy Spirit and not be saved. The choice is theirs to make. God does not coerce anyone into salvation. He gives them a choice to make. They, with their own faith, must make that decision. God does not make it for them.

 

This ONLY what YOU say about these people, only YOU.

 

I'm still waiting on scripture saying God stopped holding up Satan which caused his rebellion.

(I know it won't come cause it ain't there) :laugh:

 

There is no way to know for sure a person's motive, and for the sake of the analogy we can even suppose the man is a believer and thus has the ability to have good motives. For the sake of the analogy I'm supposing that his motive is purely to stop the killing of innocent unborn babies, there is no reason to suppose otherwise. For you to dismiss that as a possibility begs the question, thus forcing you to prove that it is impossible for a man to have a pure motive while still choosing the wrong means.

Yippee! :wavey:

 

Luke said;

That is simply not true. If I lie to make someone feel good, it is a lie nonetheless. I gave the example of going over to someone's house for dinner, the dinner was not good. The host asks how you liked the dinner and you say you enjoyed it because you did not want to hurt their feelings. Your motive is good, but it is a lie nonetheless.

I could rob a bank and claim it was to pay for an operation that my child needed or else he would die. That is a good motive, but it would still be a crime for me to rob that bank.

Fact is, many people have tried to use good motives as a defense in trials for crimes they have committed. It rarely succeeds.

 

It is God who determines what a lie is. We are not capable because of our flesh to determine a pure motive. We must go by what God says and not what we think is right.


A lie is a lie regardless of motive and God forbids it. He never said a lie is ok if your "motive" is good.


Murder for example.
Do I need to post scripture to prove that the taking of life in war is not sin? Or that to take a life defending oneself or others is not sin? It is murder that is sin. God never says anything about "motive".

 

Having a good motive does not make sin good.

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Jesus told his disciples there would come a time when men would kill them and believe they were serving God. Their motive is good, they believe they are killing false teachers that corrupt God's word. Saul (Paul) comes to mind here, he sincerely believed he was serving God when he persecuted Christians.

Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Paul thought he was serving God when he persecuted Christians, he thought he was iradicating false doctrine. His motives were sincere, but his actions were sinful.

Saul also had a good motive when he spared the sheep and oxen of the Amalekites, but it was sin.

1 Sam 15:14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.

Saul had a good motive, he spared the best sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the LORD. Trouble is, God had commanded him to kill all the Amalekites including their sheep and oxen.

1 Sam 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

So, having a good motive does not determine whether an act is good or evil.

 

You have just replaced the word "decree" with the word "foreordained" so could you define "foreordain" now? Like I told you when I first started this quest, it doesn't help just switching between a half dozen ambiguous and undefined terms such as "determined, predetermined, caused, foreordained, ordained, decreed, predestined, etc etc. You need to explain what it is to decree something. Like I asked before, What does it mean to say God decreed the the fall of man?

I think it means, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency." What do you think about that?

Further, since you admitted there is a permissive decree, can you just list one thing that might fall under God permissive decree and expound on that a bit?

 

You don't think stoping abortion is a good motive?

Now, you are bluring the line between motive and means again. The motive is presumed to be pure for the sake of the argument, and unless you can prove that is never possible there is no grounds to presume otherwise.

Let me try it this way. We both agree that God promised to never flood the entire earth as he did in Noah's day, right? What if God did flood the earth again thus breaking that promise? (please don't say, well then he never made that promise because we are accepting that he did make that promise but decided to break it and flood the earth for a good reason) Is that possible? Can God break his own promise as long it is for a good reason?

Can he promise to save you and then change his mind for good reason? In other words, once God promises to do something is he obligated to do that thing, or could he NOT do it for a good reason and it be okay?

The motive is different and the means are different, so I don't see your point. The motive of a solder is pure and the means he is using is pure. The motive of the criminal in the neighborhood is impure and his means are impure. What point are you trying to make with this?

I love the way you give ultimatums by withholding clarity of your theology, all the while accusing those around you of holding to a "nameless theology."

I guess you don't see the irony in that, do you?

You might want to include "foreordain" since you just used that word to define "decree." Let me guess you are going to define "ordain" as "that which God decrees will necessarily come to pass," right? :laugh:

 

Crabtownboy, let me introduce Luke, our resident Hyper-Calvinist. He continues to show his true colors with every posting. In his world, God wanted sin to exist so that He, God could receive even more glory. Of course, this totally contradicts scripture, but that doesn't stop Luke from continuing to spout this same old garbage, time and time again!

 

I can't believe I'm saying this, but when it comes to a lie I side with Luke. Rahab lied and her motive was pure in doing so. Jonathan also lied to protect David. It's what flows from the heart that determines sin.

 

By your own statement here you have said that God is the author of all good and also all evil. I do not believe that.

I do not remember if it was Pearl Buck or Mildred Cable who told the story about a peasant farmer who gave his sons terrible beatings. When ask why he beat his sons so severely he replied:

"How will my sons know I love them if I do not beat them."

This is what you are doing to God ... making him a father who inflicts evil on his children so they will know he loves them."

To me this is a complete misunderstanding of God and his purpose.

 

Some did, some did not. From your prespective those who denied the trinity cannot be blamed as they were simply preordained by God to believe as they did.

I don't believe I said that. But they were contemporaries.

So is Communism, but that does not make Communism a good governmental or economic system.

I beg to differ. We simply have a different view of his sovereignty and what that means.

I agree.

I respectfully disagree.

I respectfully disagree.

I do not see how this is possible in the Calvinist view as God authored or preordained evil.

And I respectfully disagree. It may be obvious to you, but it is an error.

So, and you have yet to respond to this ... if you beat your child and injure him it is all right as then you can show how merciful you are.

Yes it would not be needed. But your interpretation of this is an error.

As man has used his free will to sin then yes these are good. If man had never sinned they would not be necessary and we would be in personal contact with God. God is working toward restoring this relationship. God would much rather have this type of relationship than to have to forgive us our shortcomings.

You opinion. I just defended it.

What I find indefensible is the stance saying God is the author of all evil and that is exactly what you have said to me through the posts in this thread.

 

You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. Now you have resorted to saying some of the most silly things yet.

So, if I kill my sick neighbor to alleviate his suffering this is not an evil act, since my motive is to stop his suffering? What foolishness!

 

It seems to me it is like this.

Adam and eve sinned and brought death and evil into our world.

The Calvinist view is that God predestined this for his own glory by his exhibiting grace and forgiveness.

I say that Adam and Eve sinned by their own freewill and thus broke their close relationship with God.

Since that time God has been working to restore that close relationship through his grace and forgiveness. This shows his love and greatness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert, thanks for your words to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke2427, I have a question. Is Jesus the fullest revelation of God and God's character to us?