Calvinism and the origin of evil

See what I mean?

 

Exactly. I asked Luke about Jer 32:35 several times a week or so ago, and each time he ignores it. That is because he CAN'T explain it in his system.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Here the Jews were sacrificing their children, and God said he did not command this, it did not come into his mind, and he did not cause it.
This verse absolutely refutes Luke's view and he knows it, so he simply ignores it. How about that for scholarship?

 

Luke, again, you blur the lines. One can sincerely believe they are acting in obedience to God and be wrong. That is what separates the means from the motive.

You think you are serving God by defending Calvinistic dogma, I think I am serving God by defending my views. We both have the right motive, but we are not both right. The motive may be good, but the means (doctrine) is either right or wrong...truth or error. Scripture is clear that even if a man sins in ignorance it is still sin.

The fact that you don't think my response did address your post is disheartening and quite aggravating.

God does NOT do the deed (kill his son), as you teach. He permits the deed and even disposes certain events (hardening of Israel), too accomplish his purpose. Some may equate his permitting of something that he could have stopped as his DOing the deed, but that would be contradicting what the confessions and Edwards go to lengths to make very clear...God is not the doer of evil deeds.

 

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering. (Leviticus 4:2-3)

One may be sincere, but sincerely wrong.
There are many in false religions and false cults just like that--sincere, but sincerely wrong.

 

Anyone who continues to show Luke the error of Calvinism is ignored by him. Anyone who will not play ball to suit him is labeled as someone who is non responsive. This way he attempts to hide his inability to answer.

 

Since Calvinism is the true representation of systematic biblical theology, one can't show him the "errors" of it because it is the correct position.

The incorrect position with huge gaping holes in theology is the heretical semi pelagian position that denies the sovereignty of God in election.

So when semi pelagians say the same [offensive language edited] things over and over again, it gets to the point where a bible believer will just ignore them.

 

This is only an opinion, an opinion that is bound to be wrong. Please find any hint of "Calvinism" among the writings of the Apostles, then I will believe you. You have put the writings of a man over the Scriptures and made him your final authority.

Just because one does not believe in Calvinism does not make him "heretical semi pelagian." These are the false assumptions of the Calvinist.

When do Calvinists stop making posts that need to be edited?

 

You know what they say about opinions don't you?

 

You should REALLY be careful there OB, you are making some very Bold assertions and strident allegations.

 

OOOOOOH :smilewinkgrin:

 

It comes down to free will. If men and angels have free will and can act independently of God, this makes us the cause of our own sin.
I think Jer 32:35 proves men can act freely, God said he did not command this sin, it did not come into his mind, and he did not cause it. I believe this proves man can have independent wicked imaginations and motives of his own.
If you do not believe man has free will, then you have to believe God is the ultimate cause of sin as Luke believes.
The Calvinist will argue, Cannot God prevent sin? Well, if he truly gives us free will he cannot unless he kills us all before we have a chance to commit sin. Now, what good is that?
As myself and others have said, when we had children we knew they would come into the world and commit sin, the only way to prevent it would be not to have children. But then we would have no one to love, and isn't that the great motivation behind having children, that we have someone who truly loves us, and that we have someone we can truly love?
God could have not created us, or killed us before we could sin, but it would be pretty lonely in heaven. God is self-sufficient, but I believe even God wants to express his love, and also to be loved, just like we do.

 

and for the eleventh time im telling you you are blurring the line between means and motive. I know stopping abortion (the motive) doesn't justify murder (means), that is the basis of my point which is one can have a pure motive but choose the wrong means. I know you are wise enough to make that differentiation if you are not overly consumed with 'being right' all the time.

to presume his motive must have been impure because his mean were impure actually undermines your argument because it implies that if Gods chosen means are impure that his motive must also be impure. It begs the question to assume that incorrect means necessitates incorrect motive. It presumes that man could never have a good motive while choosing an incorrect means, a presumption that you have provided NO basis for whatsoever except to say it over and over more emphatically.

Translation: 'Are these the right means to accomplish this motive?'

Notice that the affirmative answer to this question ONLY validates the means, but the motive could be completely impure and this question could still be answered 'YES.'

See how you have failed once again to distinguish between means and motive? If you cant make that distinction you fall into pragmatism which says, 'The ends always justifies the means,' and i really dont think you want to go there.

Your question makes it appear the means are never wrong if the motive is right, which once again begs the question and is biblically unfounded.

No, actually even if you answer that question with the affirmative you could still have impure motives and we both agree that even the right means with impure motives is sin.

So if my motive is to make myself look good to those in the church i could give a big donation. Would that be an effective means to accomplish that motive? Yes, it could make me look good, but it would be wrong because i did it for the wrong reason.

Why not just say, as I did before, that you could vote for pro-life leaders? I think that would work better than 'gum chewing.' There is nothing immoral about voting for a prolife canidate (means) in order to accomplish the motive of stoping abortion. BUt if that same person, believes God wants him to save the babies by force and murders the doctor then his MEANS have changed, his reason for doing it is the same...to stop abortions.

Something is not true just because you say it enough times Luke. You are begging the question. THe motive is evil when the motive is evil. The means are evil when the means are evil. You have to prove that wrong means necessitate wrong motives.

That presumes that the individual doesnt sincerely believe that God demands him to murder the baby killer. There are many verses which could be interpreted to support this view, which would be wrong, but again incorrect understanding can lead one with good motives to make bad choices.

You are now presuming you know every mans conscience when he makes a poor choice based upon the magnitude of the mans sin, but this is also true of any 'small sin' not just murder so we could just change the illustration to negate this presumption.

Again, we could change the illustration to discuss a LESS CLEAR rule which would negate this presumption as well. For example, a pastor may desire to get help with serving the people of his congregation (good motive) and his view of scripture is in conflict with others believers about who and who is not qualified for that role of deacon. If he chose a divorced man one might argue he has sinned, even if his motive was good. Is the motive in question? No, the means are being debated... is it RIGHT to appoint a divorced man as a deacon to accomplish the motive of serving the

and dont you think that doing an evil deed (like killing Jesus) isnt consistent with himself? Dont you think that is why the confession and edwards and the rest are emphatic to say GOd didnt do it, but that he permitted it and disposed events and used SECOND causes, etc? You just say 'HE DID IT and MEN DID IT' which is not what they are saying at all!!!!

WHAT? Do you believe that the ends always justify the means? YOu are ok with manipulative preachers?

both are evil, one is a natural calamity[evil] like a earthquake, the second is a moral evil.

Now that Ive gone through the post line by line make sure you still look at the points of my follow up posts and you will see that I addressed all our points of contention in them as well. You are really high maintence!

 

Luke, to simplify our discussion allow me to focus on just this point for now without accusing me of ignoring you post, ok? You said a lot of things but most of it boil down to this one issue:

Luke, you do understand that "adherents to the doctrine of perspicuity of scripture accept the Calvinist teaching that man is depraved and needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to see the meaning for what it is," which is why I have accused you of question begging. By presuming this doctrine as fact you are presuming the very point up for debate, which is that two believers might read the same passage and walk away with two different interpretation thus leading them to strive to obey God (good motive) by two different means (one right, and the other wrong).

So two pastors who both really love God and really want their church to be served might interpret the passages about the qualification of deacons differently (something this doctrine presumes isn't possible). BOTH have good motives (serve the church) but only one of them has the correct understanding of what qualifies a deacon...if they are both right because they 'mean well' then what is right or wrong is all relative. There are right motives and wrong motives just there are right ways to do something and wrong ways to do something (right and wrong means). Just because someone has the right motive doesn't mean the way they choose to accomplish that motive is right. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

I'm not asking for agreement, im asking for understanding. Your responses don't convince me that you understand my point, once i know you at least understand my points then i know you are addressing our actual points of contention.

 

Why would you say that? I doubt that it was so foggy to the Jew because they were in that historical context.