God's Purposes Thwarted?

Yes, but regarding the origin of evil and God's divine decrees Edwards (by his own testimony) was in agreement with the Arminians. As Ben quoted from the other thread, there must be clarity in regard to how one defines God's decrees.

Luke has a tendency to switch terms as he goes. For weeks he used the term "decree," but when I finally got him to admit he affirmed "permissive decrees" then he switched and began to use the term "purposes." This makes his statement ambiguous at best. Of course we all affirm that God has a purpose in all that he has decreed, whether decretively or permissively. But Luke's ambiguity leaves room for the idea that God's decree are the cause of evil, rather than the permitting of evil, something Edwards clearly rejected in his writings.

If you read and study scholarly Arminians you will see they don't typically differ on this point, however if you read all that Luke has written on the subject you will see quite a distinction.

Luke has said that "God does the deeds," but the deeds we would call "evil" (murder, lies, rape, incest, molestation, etc) are not really "evil" when God does them because He does them with a pure motive. True classical Calvinism is clear to argue that God doesn't do these deeds, but that he permits them for a purpose and they will necessarily come to pass because they are foreknown and divine foreknowledge is as sure as after-knowledge. But knowledge whether prior or after is not a cause or determining factor. Edwards was clear to say in regard to moral evil that God permitted, or did not hinder moral evil so that it would necessarily or certainly come to pass.

Make sense?

 

Quote please. I have written papers on Edwards, have read his works, and in none of those, has he ever said what you are claiming here. In fact, Here is one quote regarding this subject...

"I say, seeing we have such evidence that this sin is foreordained in God's decrees, and ordered in providence, and it being, as it were, the head sin, and representative of the sin of men in general; hence is a clear argument, that all the sins of men are foreordained and ordered by a wise Providence." (1)

(1)Edwards, Jonathan (2009). The Works of Jonathan Edwards, volume 2 of 2 (Samizdat Edition with Active Table of Contents), improved 2/6/2011 (Kindle Locations 38627-38629). B&R Samizdat Express. Kindle Edition.

I don't think you comprehend the idea of permissive and active decrees. Even in terms of "permissive" decrees, it is still affirmed that:

1) God could have done things a different way.
2) He chose to have the sinful act occur, even though in Hiss sovereign power He could have achieved the same ends in a different manner.
3) He has ordered the circumstances, heart, and mind of an individual in such a way that they WILL freely choose to sin.
4) He could have ordered the circumstances, heart, and mind of an individual in such a way that they would have freely chosen NOT to sin

Actually, they do. Arminians as a whole, reject the permissive will of God as I have laid out above. Classic Arminians affirm that God has "sovereignly" chose to allow something that is outside his ultimate will, in order to maintain the personal freedom of individuals.

No. What Luke says DOES make sense, to some extent. If God kills someone, it is not murder to Him. Murder is the unjust taking of a life. God however, owns all life, and therefore can take it as He sees fit (which He does everyday anyway). God is not evil in ordaining a murder, any more than He is evil for giving someone a heart attack. He calls people home how, and when He desires.

Also, Edwards clearly states, in MULTIPLE places, that God ORDAINED evil...He did not just "permit" it. God was not passive. He actively set into motion all of the elements that would DEFINITELY bring it to pass...and He could have done it differently.

 

The quote which lead us to this dialogue is this one provided by Luke months ago:

“They who object, that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, ‘the author of sin.’ I know the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant ‘the sinner, the agent,’ or ‘actor of sin,’ or ‘the doer of a wicked thing’; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.

But if, by ‘the author of sin,’ is mean the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense). And, I do not deny, that God being thus the author of sin, follows from what I have laid down; and, I assert, that it equally follows from the doctrine which is maintained by most of the Arminian divines." - Jonathan Edwards

But using that example in the context of God actively "doing of all deeds," doesn't work out so nicely when applied to other sins. Did God molest or rape Dahmer's victims, or did he permit it according to his foreknowledge?

I think Edwards was pretty careful to draw the distinction between what God did and what God permitted. At least he was in the quote Luke provided. As with any individual there are developments and changes within their teachings along the way, especially at times when they are being pressed about certain inconsistencies. However, in this quote he was, even by his own admission, consistent with the Arminian divines. Whether he remained consistent with this view in all his writings, I really don't know or care, as this was the quote I chose to use a being a common ground explanation of the origin of evil.

Much could be said here, but even in that statement I don't here Luke's argument that God "does the deed, but with pure motive, so its not evil." Instead, I hear "God set elements into motion" and the deed would certainly "come to pass" but he could have prevented it. I still don't hear you going as far as Luke in saying "Satan does it - but so does God, " etc.

 

This is the reason I seldom reply. There is always someone who will misread what I write and add words I didn't say, disagree with what I write, criticize what I write, or just plain tell me how wrong I am, and it gets a bit tiresome.

First off, I did NOT say that everything that happens is part pf God's plan. I said that God will ALWAYS accomplish His plan no matter what man or the devil do or throw in His path. Much of what happens is because of sin, and because of the devil's hatred of God, and because of man's rejection of God and His plan.

 

That quote does not mean what you are trying to get it to say. Notice that Edwards is still affirming that God caused the sin to occur, He is just stating that God used secondary means, He is the "disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends an purposes." This is NOT saying that God just used events that occur for His ends, but that He caused them to occur by orchestrating events in such a way as to cause them.

Also, Edwards himself is wrong here...Arminius himself would disagree VEHEMENTLY with that statement.

Do you think He was unable to prevent it? Unwilling? God is sovereign, even when we don't understand it. If you always keep in your mind that every man, woman and child on the face of the earth deserves an eternity of punishment in hell, it will help keep things in perspective.

Edwards was clear, even in the quote provided, that God did NOT just allow these events, but brought them to pass.

Edwards was not well read on Arminians. His quote above would have given Arminius a heart attack. He misunderstood them on several points.

But you must understand that it is both. God did not actively cause it, so He is not responsible. Yet He did indeed passively cause it, and is therefore the root cause of the event. Make sure you understand me...God WANTED those things to happen. He just used secondary means to accomplish it.

 

Would another way to say this is that God either deternines events to happen, permit events to happen, but that in both he is "overseeing" that what is done and gets accomplished is is per His Will and divine purposes?

 

Most interesting that we here on BB on this subject can qute authors like edwards, calvin etc but seem to have a hard time quoting Apostle paul for this?

strange, thought that he was the Inspired one!

 

Welcome to the Luke Rebuke. :laugh:

Don't take his remarks personally.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree knowing that Edwards is in agreement with me, not you, regarding the intent of his words in this quote. Personally, I think he would be a better judge of his intent and the intent of the 'Arminian divines' than you are, so I'm ok being at odds with you on this point.

That is okay though. We don't have to agree about everything. We know Edwards sides with Calvinists in almost every other aspect, so its not as if you have lost him as one of your heroes or anything. I just believe he was stating a view which has and probably should be common ground between Arminians and Calvinists, but certainly even he understood that wouldn't apply to everyone equally.

Of course not. Who would?

He was willing to allow it, but didn't take pleasure in the sin. Again, I believe that is consistent with what I've read from Edwards.

I couldn't agree more.

Again, I agree. This is a point of common ground for us, so I'm not sure what application it has to our discussion?

If you mean by the phrase "brought them to pass" that God "did not hinder, but permitted them so that they certainly would come to pass," then we agree. But if you mean that God did IT, as Luke has been quoted to say, then I have an issue and if so, I have some questions:

1. Why even speak of what God has permitted, if indeed he is the one actively bringing it to pass? Isn't that like saying God permitted himself to do something?

2. Why does Edwards, and other 'reformed' creeds, go to great lengths to say that God doesn't author sin, if indeed there is no real distinction in what God has only permitted and actively brought to pass?

3. Can you describe the difference in something God has actively brought to pass by his own positive agency and something he has permissively decreed to come to pass? While I concede that both decreed events are necessarily going to come to pass, I think the issue is regarding the origin or authorship of the evil intent. For example, Satan's intent to "become like God" had to originate somewhere. Did God author it (originate it, come up with the idea first)? Or did Satan author it? Was Satan the first person to think of that intent to do evil, or was God?

 

In the above you use the term “caused” loosely while you say Edwards is stating that God used “secondary means” and I would assume (hope) that you are referring to a view of Compatibilism on the issue of free will/creaturely volition to maintain the responsibility of sin on the creature. (?) The “manner” in which Edwards speaks is linked to by him to include a “holy” and most wise excellent ends and purposes” and this seems to be in regards to NOT directly assigning the cause of evil to God; Edwards seems to be acknowledging the importance of mentioning complexities (Secondary causes/Compatibilism) in making such a statement so that they are NOT perceived as making God the author of sin.

You OTOH restate the terms “orchestrating events in “such a way” as to cause them (sin) yet do this without eluding to a “secondary means/Compatibilism” because you are declaring it is more than saying “God just used the events” but state that He directly caused them. What happened to your view of Compatibilism, have you become a Hard Determinist that attributes sin directly to God?

If you keep in your mind that all God’s ways are righteous judgment in Truth (Deut 32:4) then you will understand that man must be responsible for causing his own sins to deserve punishment in hell and that will help keep the importance of clarifying the truth of God’s Divine Nature in perspective.

Again Edwards seemed to see the necessity to relate this to secondary causes.

Now you are back to Compatibilism on one hand yet on the other hand state that God did indeed passively cause “it” (sin).

How can man be held responsible for their sins if their ability (the cause, root cause, if you like) is “controlled” or pre-determined by God?!


Free will (or even from a Compatibilist’ perspective concerning free will) should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void and creaturely responsibility along with it. Where does your lack of clarification leave the Truth in God’s righteous judgment (Deut 32:4)?

Is strictly holding to a systematic determinist doctrine really so important to people here on this board to win a debate that they are willing to be ambiguous about or even forego preaching the TRUTH of the Nature of our God being Omnibenevolent???

 

"In this definition of Divine Providence, I by no means deprive it of any particle of those properties which agree with it or belong to it; but I declare that it preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance. Beside this, I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying, that "God both wills and performs good acts," but that "He only freely permits those which are evil." Still farther than this, I very readily grant, that even all actions whatever, concerning evil, that can possibly be devised or invented, may be attributed to Divine Providence Employing solely one caution, "not to conclude from this concession that God is the cause of sin." This I have testified with sufficient clearness, in a certain disputation concerning the Righteousness and Efficacy of Divine Providence concerning things that are evil, which was discussed at Leyden on two different occasions, as a divinity-act, at which I presided. In that disputation, I endeavoured to ascribe to God whatever actions concerning sin I could possibly conclude from the scriptures to belong to him; and I proceeded to such a length in my attempt, that some persons thought proper on that account to charge me with having made God the author of sin. The same serious allegation has likewise been often produced against me, from the pulpit, in the city of Amsterdam, on account of those very theses; but with what show of justice such a charge was made, may be evident to any one, from the contents of my written answer to those Thirty-one Articles formerly mentioned, which have been falsely imputed to me, and of which this was one." - Jacobus Arminius

I don't see much, if any distinction between the point Arminus made here and the one Edwards made in his quote. Both affirm that God's Providence "preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance" and that even the the "free-will and even the actions of a rational creature" are subject to His Providence "so that nothing can be done without the will of God." Yet, they both acknowledge that God doesn't "author evil" but instead "permits those [acts] which are evil."

Here is yet another quote from Arminus explaining similar views:

 

Just curious...

What did Jesus and Paul state regarding this area?

 

Boy, folks sure can overcomplicate things. What do the scriptures say in simple language?

Jer 7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

The children of Judah were sacrificing their children to Baal. Did God know about it? Yes. Did he allow them to do it? Yes, though in the following verses he pronounces severe judgments against them. Did God decree this? I don't think so, God said he did not command it. Was it God's idea for the children of Judah to do this? I don't think so, God said it did not come into his heart.

And God said this twice more in Jeremiah.

Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

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.

This last verse is especially revealing, again God says he did not command this sin, so I have a great deal of difficulty believeing this sin was decreed. Again, it did not come into his mind, so obviously this sin did not originate with God. But also we see that he did not use this as a means of causing Judah to sin.

I know this is not as interesting as the theories of Edwards and Arminius, but why don't you fellas try solving this using scripture?

 

So, your are denying God's Omniscience??!! He did not even KNOW this would happen?

 

You can read, you tell me. All I know is that God said he never commanded the children of Judah to sacrifice their children to Baal. I am no expert on theological definitions, but isn't a decree a command? Correct me if I'm wrong.

And it was God himself who said this sacrificing of children did not come into his mind or heart. Now he certainly knew of this sin or else he could not speak about it, so obviously this means he never intended this sin to occur.

Isn't that correct? If not, please explain what God meant when he said this sin did not come into his heart or mind.

 

No. That is not correct. First, God did not say the action did not come into His mind or heart. He just said "mind." Therefore, if the action itself did not come into His mind, you must believe that God is limited, and did not know the future...which is heresy.

Second, the action itself is not what is in view. The COMMAND is what is in view. He said he never spoke a command, nor did COMMANDING the Children of Judah to do it, ever come into His mind.

As far as hearts, God is in firm control of them, turning them where He wills..

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

Jer 24:7 I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD, and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole he

 

In all three verses he describes their actions. He says they have built their high places to burn their children. Then he says "WHICH" I commanded them not. He is absolutely speaking of their sinful actions and says he never commanded it, neither came "IT" (their actions) into his mind.

And he does say heart in Jer 7:31, read for yourself.

Assigning sin to God is heresy.

 

In all three verses he describes their actions. He says they have built their high places to burn their children. Then he says "WHICH" I commanded them not. He is absolutely speaking of their sinful actions and says he never commanded it, neither came "IT" (their actions) into his mind.

And he does say heart in Jer 7:31, read for yourself.

Assigning sin to God is heresy.

 

double post

 

More like triple...