1. 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!

God is too big?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Chick Daniels, Nov 2, 2001.

  1. dfd2

    dfd2 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,

    This issue of wether or not God is soveriegn over evil is not merely theolgical hairsplitting and an academic exercise It is grounded in how Christians can live throughout this evil age. Chick brought up another great illustration in the bible of God willing evil for His glory in te Joseph account. "You meant it for evil, but God for good" This theological truth that God is indeed completely sovereign even allowing evil is actually a comforting fact. Just recently two airplanes savagely, ripped through the worl trade centers killing thousands. How are we to respond to this evil? Is this evil onslaugt out of control, is Satan taking over?? should we be afraid? NO and why not? Because of God's soveriegnty. Because we now that all of the evil that takes place in this world can only come by the hand of God. Prime example, once again in the Bible, Job. Satan had to go through God to get to Job. See Arminiansm shrink and are horrified by the fact that yes God is in absolute control of everything, even evil. Whereas Calvinists can take heart in the fact that God is in control.

    [ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: dfd2 ]
     
  2. dfd2

    dfd2 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,

    I answered your questions, now I'd appreciate it if you'd answer mine:

    1. Is murder evil?
    2. Was the murder of Jesus evil?
    3. Did God will for Jesus to be murdered?
    4. Did God will evil?

    [ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: dfd2 ]
     
  3. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have already posted this elsewhere, but in light of the discussion, its probably good to post it again.

    ***************************
    Why I Do Not Say, “God Did Not Cause the Calamity, But He Can Use It for Good.”

    September 19, 2001

    John Piper

    Many Christians are speaking this way about the murderous destruction of the World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001. God did not cause it, but he can use it for good. There are two reasons I do not say this. One is that it goes beyond, and is contrary to, what the Bible teaches. The other is that it undermines the very hope it wants to offer.

    First, this statement goes beyond and against the Bible. For some, all they want to say, in denying that God "caused" the calamity, is that God is not a sinner and that God does not remove human accountability and that God is compassionate. That is true - and precious beyond words. But for others, and for most people who hear this slogan, something far more is implied. Namely, God, by his very nature, cannot or would not act to bring about such a calamity. This view of God is what contradicts the Bible and undercuts hope.

    How God governs all events in the universe without sinning, and without removing responsibility from man, and with compassionate outcomes is mysterious indeed! But that is what the Bible teaches. God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).

    This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28).

    From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure - God governs them all for his wise and just and good purposes (Isaiah 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, in time of disaster, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). After losing all ten of his children in the collapse of his son's house, Job says, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). After being covered with boils he says, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10).

    Oh, yes, Satan is real and active and involved in this world of woe! In fact Job 2:7 says, "Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." Satan struck him. But Job did not get comfort from looking at secondary causes. He got comfort from looking at the ultimate cause. "Shall we not accept adversity from God?" And the author of the book agrees with Job when he says that Job's brothers and sisters "consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him" (Job 42:11). Then James underlines God's purposeful goodness in Job's misery: "You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful" (James 5:11). Job himself concludes in prayer: "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). Yes, Satan is real, and he is terrible - and he is on a leash.

    The other reason I don't say, "God did not cause the calamity, but he can use it for good," is that it undercuts the very hope it wants to create. I ask those who say this: "If you deny that God could have 'used' a million prior events to save 5,000 people from this great evil, what hope then do you have that God could now 'use' this terrible event to save you in the hour of trial?" We say we believe he can use these events for good, but we deny that he could use the events of the past to hold back the evil of September 11. But the Bible teaches he could have restrained this evil (Genesis 20:6). "The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples" (Psalm 33:10). But it was not in his plan to do it. Let us beware. We spare God the burden of his sovereignty and lose our only hope.

    All of us are sinners. We deserve to perish. Every breath we take is an undeserved gift. We have one great hope: that Jesus Christ died to obtain pardon and righteousness for us (Ephesians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21), and that God will employ his all-conquering, sovereign grace to preserve us for our inheritance (Jeremiah 32:40). We surrender this hope if we sacrifice this sovereignty.

    Strengthening Your Confidence in Christ Our King,

    Pastor John

    To receive John Piper's latest Fresh Words article via email subscription send a message to [email protected].
    To receive John Piper's latest sermon manuscript via email subscription send a message to [email protected].

    © Bethlehem Baptist Church. You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that: (1) you credit the author, (2) any modifications are clearly marked, (3) you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, (4) you do not make more than 1,000 copies. (5) you include DGM's toll-free number (888/346-4700) and web site address (www.desiringGOD.org) on the copied resource. For placing this material on the web, a link to the document on DGM's web site is preferred. If your intended use is other than that outlined above, please contact Desiring God Ministries, 720 13th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415. (612) 338-8611, [email protected].
    ***********************************
     
  4. Daniel Davidson

    Daniel Davidson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This issue of wether or not God is soveriegn over evil is not merely theolgical hairsplitting and an academic exercise It is grounded in how Christians can live throughout this evil age.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You are right. That is why I vehemently deny your absurd claim that god wills evil. Yours is an evil god.
     
  5. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are right. That is why I vehemently deny your absurd claim that god wills evil. Yours is an evil god.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You need to go back and read John Piper's statement as given by Chris Temple. God willed that Job suffer the calamities. Are you willing to say that God was absurd in doing this, or that He is evil?
     
  6. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, Daniel, when I used the term "utilize" above, I used it in a way that most Arminians would likely disagree. I meant "will its use", not just react to its presence. In other words, it is one of the things within His power to will and do to whomever He pleases. God does not "sin" when He chooses to bring evil (calamity, tragedy, pain, suffering) into someone's life. God is love, and God is also just. If we all got justice, we all without exception would spend eternity in the flames of the lake of fire. God does not sin by placing people into the lake of fire. Neither does he sin by causing a man's house to collapse killing their ten children--and then giving him boils and three friends who criticize! WE DO NOT DESERVE GOD'S GRACE. We love Him, we thank Him, we adore Him because he has been so gracious and merciful to us.

    I personally know one of the family members of that couple that lost 6 children in that van explosion in Wisconsin in the mid-nineties. Was it God's will that this calamity happened? Yes. Do we understand it all? No. But we trust God that His will is perfect, and we rush to His loving arms. We do know that as a result of that accident, scores (hundreds) of people have come to Christ, and folks are still challenged by the testimony of the parents. Yes these parents will bear scars the rest of their lives, but so did Job. But won't it be something to see those parents re-united with their children in heaven some day? I will want a front row seat to see it.

    Chick
     
  7. dfd2

    dfd2 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel.

    I am puzzled as to why after I, calmly, answered your questions you seem to not want to answer mine? I have answered your questions and I'd appreciate it if you answer mine. Thank you.
     
  8. dfd2

    dfd2 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,
    I answered your questions, now I'd appreciate it if you'd answer mine:

    1. Is murder evil?
    2. Was the murder of Jesus evil?
    3. Did God will for Jesus to be murdered?
    4. Did God will evil?
     
  9. Daniel Davidson

    Daniel Davidson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue is not whether God wills that we suffer a litte in this world. Suffering, in itself, is not evil. The issue is whether God creates some men with the intent, desire and purpose of having them suffer eternal torment. Calvin (and some Calvinists, though not all) say yes. The bible says that the Father will all men to be saved.
     
  10. dfd2

    dfd2 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,

    I'm very puzzled as to why you are not showming me the same courtesy and respect I showed you by clearly answering my questions. I showed you courtesy by plainly answering each one of your questions. Id like it if you would show me the same courtesy. I'm not going to continue in any further discussion with you until you do so, thanks and always with love , Mark
     
  11. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,

    Fallen man is accountable for his sin. All of us deserve eternal punishment in hell. It is wonderful grace that God elects any of the human race out of this hopeless condition. No lost person at the great white throne judgement will be able to look at God and say that He unfairly did not elect him unto salvation. The non-elect willingly and lustily desire the lost condition in which they exist. Remember that the Babylonians were justly punished for sacking Jerusalem, and yet it was God that compelled them to go and do it. The key is those attackers were fully responsible for the sins they committed--yet they unknowningly were in the center of God's predetermined plan.

    You have admitted in your last post that God wills that we suffer a little in the world. AMEN! The camel's nose is in the tent! You are now safely on the slipperly slope that leads to the Calvinist position. How much is a little? Where do we draw the line between a little and a lot? If God is capable of willing a little calamity (evil), why is He not capable of willing a lot of it?

    Best wishes,

    Chick

    [ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]
     
  12. Daniel Davidson

    Daniel Davidson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why are you so surprised? I never denied that God wills suffering. That's just a caricature. I deny that God creates people with the desire to make them suffer eternal torment. The bible says that God wills all men be saved. Calvin says that God will some men be damned.

    Most Calvinists don't agree with Calvin, which is why, before the old man was even dead, his followers were changing his theology to bring it more in line with the biblical truth. Remember, Arminius was a great scholar and a committed Calvinist until he was chosen to combat anti-Calvin "heresies". He prepared himself for this task by carefully studying scripture, and, surprise surprise, realized that Calvin was wrong.

    Didn't CT say in another thread that he was an infrlapsarian? This proves the point that some Calvinists simply do not agree with Calvin's "dreadful decree." I would venture to say most. Once we start throwing out bits and pieces of Calvin, it seems silly to argue that Arminians throw out too much while infralapsarians throw out just the right amount. I'm sure Arminians think infralapsarians throw out too little.

    Arminius was chosen by the leading Calvinist powers of his day to combat anti-Calvinist teaching precisely because he was an honest man, a strong Calvinist, and an internationally recognized scholar. If I want to know what he thought, why would I read commentaries by someone whose credential are marginal at best, instead of going straight to the source?

    How much suffering is a lot? Doesn't Paul say that it's all trivial compared to the glory of heaven?
     
  13. jmbertrand

    jmbertrand Guest

    Just a note: the debate between infra- and supralapsarians concerns the logical sequence or order of the decrees, not their temporal sequence. Both affirm that election preceeds the fall temporally, but the infralapsarian sees the logical sequence corresponding to revelation -- i.e., creation, fall, election, redemption. Thus, election is placed in a meaningful context. However, most Reformed thinkers today would probably agree with Dabney that this is a question that ought never to have been raised. It emerged from the Protestant scholastic period and, as John Frame suggests, is really a question of pedagogy being elevated to the level of doctrine. A better way to think about the decrees is the organic model that comes out of Dutch Reformed thinking -- I think it is Bavinck's, although Dabney was certainly there, too -- in which the decrees overlap in the mind of God. That is the extent of what we can know from Scripture.

    I suppose the question that both Calvinist and Arminian have to answer is why salvation isn't universal. Saying that God wanted to save everyone, but only if they really wanted it, is really no "better" an answer than saying He saved who He wanted, but ultimately did not save everyone, in spite of His desire that none would perish. To the unredeemed, the God we posit in both cases is hateful -- all that differs is the reason: His discrimination or His impotence.
     
  14. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,

    Nor do I agree with Calvin on everything. I believe in the separation of church/state. Calvin did not. I do not believe in infant baptism. Calvin did. Furthermore, I believe that there is no need for the construct that God had to elect some to hell and then some to heaven as though somehow men started out neutral. All men start out already condemned to hell (Jn 3:18), and out of this lost human race, God elected some to salvation. Election is always a positive term. So why does not God elect more (or everyone)? I don't know. That is His call not mine. Is it unfair? Absolutely not! None of us deserve to be elected unto salvation, and we are all responsible for our willful acts of sin which demand absolute separation from God. The key to Calvinist/Augustinian/Paulist Soteriology is the foundation of Total Depravity. This includes total inability to bring oneself toward God for Salvation. Lost man is totally dead in trespasses and sins. As soon as someone posits that God might be unfair for electing some to salvation, but leaving others dead in trespasses and sins, they are (in their depravity) assuming to know what will bring God glory better than the Holy God Who really knows what best will bring Him glory.

    Chick
     
  15. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J. Mark Bertrand:

    I suppose the question that both Calvinist and Arminian have to answer is why salvation isn't universal. Saying that God wanted to save everyone, but only if they really wanted it, is really no "better" an answer than saying He saved who He wanted, but ultimately did not save everyone, in spite of His desire that none would perish. To the unredeemed, the God we posit in both cases is hateful -- all that differs is the reason: His discrimination or His impotence.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I agree with your first paragraph - not your second. :D

    God is holy and righteous and is never either wrong or sinful. He hates perfectly and loves perfectly. He never desired that none would perish - only none of the elect. One must be very careful interpreting universal terms in Scripture.

    Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
     
  16. jmbertrand

    jmbertrand Guest

    Chris,

    Good catch. I should have written "...in spite of His love for the world." I mixed up my anti-Calvinist proof texts. [​IMG]

    In case my point in the second paragraph was ambiguous, let me explain. The Arminian is wrong if he believes that his view of soteriology is less objectionable to the unbeliever than the Calvinist's. Both are equally 'hateful' because both posit a God who has the power to save each and every person but, for whatever reason, does not. We admit that He discriminates and, not knowing why or according to what criteria, we can only defend the justice of His actions. The Arminian denies that He discriminates, saying He *wants* to save everyone, and He could in fact save everyone, but He only wants to save people who really want it. Either God discriminates for His glory or out of some (in light of His power, bizarre) scruple, but to the unbeliever He is still unjust.

    The point of this is that we should not adapt our view of God to make Him less objectionable to people who will only be satisfied with universal, unconditional salvation.

    Thanks again for the catch....

    Mark
     
  17. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J. Mark Bertrand:
    Chris,

    Good catch. I should have written "...in spite of His love for the world." I mixed up my anti-Calvinist proof texts. [​IMG]

    In case my point in the second paragraph was ambiguous, let me explain. The Arminian is wrong if he believes that his view of soteriology is less objectionable to the unbeliever than the Calvinist's. Both are equally 'hateful' because both posit a God who has the power to save each and every person but, for whatever reason, does not. We admit that He discriminates and, not knowing why or according to what criteria, we can only defend the justice of His actions. The Arminian denies that He discriminates, saying He *wants* to save everyone, and He could in fact save everyone, but He only wants to save people who really want it. Either God discriminates for His glory or out of some (in light of His power, bizarre) scruple, but to the unbeliever He is still unjust.

    The point of this is that we should not adapt our view of God to make Him less objectionable to people who will only be satisfied with universal, unconditional salvation.

    Thanks again for the catch....

    Mark
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Agreed ... well said [​IMG]
     
Loading...