This is a standard Calvinist answer. "We can't understand it - It's a paradox!" There is no problem with the freewill position in saying that a perfect being could choose to be less than perfect, if freewill indeed means the choice to obey or disobey.
There is a problem in consistent Calvinism. Consistent Calvinism has God as the author of evil, since everything has been initiated by him.
Five Effects of seeing God as personal rather than absolutistic
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by ScottEmerson, Jun 8, 2002.
Page 3 of 3
-
-
-
Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
An supralapsarian would agree with you there. We infralapsarians do not.Click to expand...
"An infralapsarian view, it seems to us, has as a natural corollary the idea that when Adam fell, the natural world was therefore changed for the worse. According to that view, God had to change His building plans-His natural laws-to inject certain "natural calamities" after Adam fell." - From Progressive Calvinism
Yet you still insist that man can do spiritual good by repenting and believing without God giving him new life first. That is illogical.Click to expand...
Why do you cling so tightly to the idea that you must have free will? Why not just trust God to give you a new nature to repent and believe without claiming you made the decision on your own to repent and believe?Click to expand...
And why would you repent and believe and Joe Blow sitting next to you at work not repent and believe without that meaning that you were "better" in some way naturally than Joe Blow?Click to expand...
In the same tone, here's a question for you: Why can't you escape the crutch of having to believe that God controls everything for you instead of realizing that God wants a personal relationship with you and he loved you so much to give you a genuine choice? -
Consistent Calvinism has God as the author of evil, since everything has been initiated by him.Click to expand...
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite SupporterOriginally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Consistent Calvinism has God as the author of evil, since everything has been initiated by him.Click to expand...
No conflict if you can come to terms with free will. -
The fault is oursClick to expand...
If that's the case, then even the free will model of things makes God the author of evil, for as you say:
God allowed for the possibility of evil when he created freedom for his creative creatures.Click to expand...
I don't see how this makes God any less the initiator of evil than the Calvinist model does. The Calvinist model doesn't say that God influenced Adam and Eve to sin, but rather that God decided to allow them to sin for a purpose.
The only real difference I see between the two models of the origin of evil is that the purpose for allowing evil is different. In the free will model, the purpose in allowing evil is so that men would have free will. In the Calvinist model, part of the purpose for allowing evil is so that God could redeem mankind.
But the mechanism (for lack of a better word) for the origin of evil is the same--a choice by God to allow it for a purpose. -
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
That would be if I did not believe that God regenerates a man to the point where he can choose.Click to expand...
FYI, I do have a relationship with God - He is my Creator, I am His creature. He is the Potter, I am His clay. The rest of our relationship flows from this.
One redeemed by Christ's blood,
Ken
Were it not for grace... -
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
"An infralapsarian view, it seems to us, has as a natural corollary the idea that when Adam fell, the natural world was therefore changed for the worse. According to that view, God had to change His building plans-His natural laws-to inject certain "natural calamities" after Adam fell." - From Progressive CalvinismClick to expand...
God is never taken by surprise by any event.
One redeemed by Christ's blood,
Ken
Were it not for grace... -
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
You're right - God through Christ elected a body called the church in the same way that God elected Israel. Not all the Israelites were "saved," but he chose the distinct body. (Romans 11).Click to expand...
I consider myself Calvinist. However, I agree with you that God has allowed men a measure of free will. I believe in the perfect will of God and the permissive will of God. I think the Bible establishes both. Where I depart from you is on the question of which catagory salvation falls into.
I accept the biblical premise that man is totally depraved and incapable of righteousness. The other 4 points logically progress from this truth. Arminianism must reject this premise in order to allow man enough good to possess saving faith.
The elect are saved by the perfect will of God which He foreknew before the foundation of the world. The primary point isn't whether man has free will or not. The Bible teaches that we do. The truth of Calvinism lies in the fact that man will not deny himself and choose God.
God does not author evil. He permits it in such a way as to contribute to His intended ends. -
Originally posted by russell55:
If that's the case, then even the free will model of things makes God the author of evil.Click to expand...
In the Calvinist model, part of the purpose for allowing evil is so that God could redeem mankind.Click to expand... -
Not necessarily. Let's say I have a child. I can either force him to do evil, or I can give him a choice. If he disobeys, that's his own doing, not me as a parent.Click to expand...
No, in the Calvinist model (from Calvin himself), God allowed evil so he could only save a few. For the rest, he allowed evil so they could be created to be damned.Click to expand...
[ June 25, 2002, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]
Page 3 of 3