God's Devil

I was more referring to your interpretation of the word "world," but yes, with all the discussions I could certainly forget the differing views of the various Calvinistic camps. For example, Aaron and Fredrick on the other thread are arguing that God's desires never go unfulfilled, thus they interpret 2 Peter 3:9 to mean God desires all "the elect" to come to repentance. I guess you disagree with them on that point?

Luke, you moved the goal posts so many times in our discussion I doubt you could dredge up all the utlimatems you gave me before supplying a working definition of "decree/ordain." First you wanted me to answer these questions:

Which I did in my first reply. I answered that question in several ways. I told you I agreed with Edwards description of how "God permits and doesn't hinder" in all these examples of evil. And because I didn't go through and answer each one individually you kept harping on it as if I hadn't answered. Another poster provided a line by line response and I also agreed with her answer, yet still you continued to harp on me as if I hadn't answered and then finally I went line by line through all of them in order to satisfy your insatiable demand. After going line by line you then claimed you already gave definitions by quoting Confessional statements. Then you told me if I explained the difference in soldiers killing people and murdering a neighbor that you would give me a definition of ordain.

Finally you define decree as :

And I explained: "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?"

I don't believe you ever responded to this post.

Well that SOMETHING was Edwards view of the Origin of Evil, the topic of our discussion. You have a tendency to dismiss points that we are debating when you are proven wrong about them as "well its ONLY that ONE thing!" As if we should all just think, "Oh, its just that one thing. The very point up for debate, but its just ONE, so it really doesn't matter. Now, if it were many things it would matter, but since its only ONE everyone should just ignore it and move on." Stop dismissing points ONE at a time as being insignificant simply because of their only being ONE. Ok?

Not if its the "something" you disagree on.

Yeah, but he separates the permissive decree from the active ones where as you just think God permits what he actively decrees. At least that is what I have deduced you believe based upon your vague posts and lack of definitions.

And there is the problem, you think God "brings to pass" evil in the same "active" way he "brings to pass" the incarnation. You have made no distinction between the two.

 

The reason Edwards and the confessional statement and fredrick and aangel are at odds with you is because you (at times) have God DOING the MEANS. As you said, "GOD is doing the deed," but that is just the opposite point of the confessions and Edwards. They are saying Men do the DEEDS, they are the means that God uses to accomplish his motive. God permits the evil deed in order to accomplish the pure motive. He doesnt do the deed himself (active agency) with a good motive making it a good deed. The deed of killing jesus was horrific and God didn't do it, men did it. He allowed it, decreed it (permissively), for good reason. See the difference?

You have said,

"God decreed evil" -Luke
"God does the deed." -Luke
"God willed the most horrible sin of all time"- Luke
"God willed for evil" -Luke
"The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE." -Luke
"God does not just allow these things" -Luke

On the other hand, Edwards says, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

I'll let the readers following along judge for themselves if you and Edwards are on the same page.

 

Just where in Calvin's writings does he state that God is the author of sin? Please show me this!

 

Of course, I am trying to follow this but I dont have the training so forgive me if Im being academic ..... but Luke, here is what I think I hear you saying....

"God, and not man, is the real author or cause of sin. Your claiming "the absolute predestination of all things" if I have it right, IE... "God predestines sin in the same way He does holiness." "Sin is a creature of God, and is a very good thing in its place,"

Is this what your are saying Luke.....do I understand you correctly?

 

Luke, just answer this question. Is there any thing which falls under God's permissive decree that doesn't fall under His active decree. Or, as Edwards puts it, any thing not under his 'positive agency'?

I'm honestly just trying to understand your view, because everything you say appears to be hard determinism, not compatibilism as you claimed to believe. That's fine if that is your view, but you seem on the one hand to defend exhaustive determinism and on the other hand claim to be a compatiblist. Even other Cals here seem to be confused by your wording, so its not just me. Im honestly just trying to find out what view you are attempting to defend.

 

Also, you have said:

'The crucifixion is the worse evil ever committed' and 'God crucified Christ,' and you have said 'God does the deed.' But then you get on to me for interpreting that to mean 'God does the evil deed, but its not evil because his motive is pure.'

When i try to explain that the confessions and other Cals are careful to explain that God DOESNT do the deed, his creatures do, and thus God is accomplishing his purposes through 2nd causes etc you still insist 'God killed Christ' as if all those explanations about 2nd causes aren't necessary. You are very careless with your terms, which is why I praised the article you posted. They were very careful to explain what they meant by their use of certain terms, which is something you need to do.

 

There has got to be more to this than meets the eye..... How would it be justifiable to kill Christ & then blame and punish man for that action? Then God would move from being a Just God to an operator ....a manipulator of men. I hope he is NOT claiming that!

 

Those are all actual quotes from Luke, but I'll let him explain himself.

Personally, I believe that God did blind or hardened the Jews from seeing the clear truth of Christ so that they wouldn't repent prior to crucifying him. But, I believe they freely rebelled and God merely kept them in darkness temporarily so as to ensure the crucifixion. I don't believe God needed to violate man's will, or manipulate them. He simply hid the truth from them so they would do what came natural. But THEY killed Christ, according to God's redemptive purpose and the prophecy, but to say God killed Christ is stepping over the line, IMO.

 

Yes....however God did not kill Jesus physically.....that would have been a sinful action & that deed (which was sinful) was applied by man. My consern is that God cannot be sinful (it is counter to His very nature) but if your adding that by removing himself He in fact allowed sin by His absence, then I understand that....that part of the equation was not being stressed (at least to me).

Had you blatantly indicated that God sinned by killing Christ, then that would have been blasphemy. Thanks for clarifying.

 

That is the missing element in Skans scenerio......the POWER to make it happen (or maybe not, he indicated Gods permissive will). I guess that permissive will is another way of saying Power. But it is not a thorough manipulation! Man has to want to do the deed, commit the sin. Had Judas, or Pilate or the Roman Centurion in charge of the execution said "No" this action will not happen on my watch, then the execution of Jesus perhaps would not have happened. Of course you will say these folks were not saved, God turned his face/goodness away from them & thus truly mandated it to happen.....but it could have been reworked had MAN REFUSED to play along.

 

Well, wait a minute...... Read this:

3rd Chapter 1689 Confessions of Faith (Baptist)

"Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins"

could fellowship be construed as giving a sinner any power to commit sin? If that's true then God completely is NOT involved with any act of sinning & in any way shape or form. Therefore the Roman Guards would not have been able to use Gods power to physically crucify Christ!

Then where would the power come from you may ask....I don't know, perhaps from the devil since it was an evil act. Perhaps man in his evil & sinful state has his own power to perpetuate evil. That I don't know.

 

So Luke....I would need to have clarification of the afore mentioned concerns before I could accept your belief that God goes to those levels to control people.

 

Even more basic a question...

CAN God actually grant free will to created beings, and still retain absolute soverignity?

Did satan and the fallen angels have such?
Did Adam And Eve?

Either they had free will to turn against God, or God 'forced' them to do such, as Evil did not even exist yet, not in their very natures?

Think that in both sisuations the Lord ctreated them with "potential" to actual have "free will" choose good or evil...

Question that seperates us will be did God cause them to act, or permit their acts?

 

I like the 1st question.....allot! Thanks

 

Ok, but what causes it TO come to pass? His simply removing himself doesn't explain what caused it. The intent to do evil had to have an origin and this is where I believe your explanation is somewhat lacking...

Really? I thought Dr. Ware was an infralapsarian, 4 point Calvinist that supported a concept of Monlina's view of "middle knowledge." You've never struck me as one who might support that more philosophical middle ground between Arm and Cals? Have I just grossly misunderstood you or do you disagree with Ware on most of these elements of teaching?