“One major flaw in Calvinism lies in its theodicy. Calvinism embraces what they refer to as the greater good defense. That means, sin is used by the sovereign God in order to realize a good purpose, to reach a greater goal in the end. Yet this is clearly in contradiction to God’s omnipotence. Wouldn’t an almighty God realize His desired purpose in a direct, straight way rather than be dependent on the means of evil to accomplish this goal?”
http://combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/06/against-reformed-theodicy.html
God used sinful Pharaoh and his sinful sorcerers to realize a good purpose, to reach a greater goal in the end. Yet this is clearly a contradiction of God’s omnipotence. After all, it lay within God’s power to liberate the children of Israel without going through the rigmarole of the ten plagues. Indeed, God could have zapped the Canaanites, then transported the children of Israel directly from Egypt to Canaan. No plagues. No wilderness wandering. No conquest.
Wouldn’t an almighty God realize His desired purpose in a direct, straightforward way rather than be dependent on the evil means to accomplish this goal?
Not to mention the way God engineered the execution of Jesus, using evil Pilate, evil Caiaphas, the evil mob, the evil Sanhedrin, the evil death by crucifixion, &c.
The events of Good Friday are clearly a denial of God’s omnipotence.
“One major flaw in Calvinism lies in its theodicy. Calvinism embraces what they refer to as the greater good defense. That means, sin is used by the sovereign God in order to realize a good purpose, to reach a greater goal in the end. Yet this is clearly in contradiction to God’s omnipotence. Wouldn’t an almighty God realize His desired purpose in a direct, straight way rather than be dependent on the means of evil to accomplish this goal?”
ReplyDeleteHow is this a specific problem for Calvinism?
Almost all theodicies say that sin/suffering sin is used by the sovereign God in order to realize a good purpose, to reach a greater goal in the end.
God used sinful Pharaoh and his sinful sorcerers to realize a good purpose, to reach a greater goal in the end.
ReplyDeleteThis is a poor answer to the question why there is evil at all, because you simply observe some historic interactions of God in the world and his dealings with mankind in particular cases. The underlying problem however, stays untouched thereby. I don't deny that God worked the way it is reported. But this doesn't serve as a valid theodicy, it even raises questions in the first place. You owe the world an explanation why an almighty God would have to utilize sin in order to reach a greater goal. The story of Mose and the Pharaoh doesn't provide such an answer.
Either God needs sin to reach a greater goal -- then he is limited in power.
Or he delights in the ways of evil themselves to reach a greater goal -- then he is evil Himself.
In any case, the Greater Good Defense robs the christian God of his power or his goodness. Hence the reformed theodicy is untenable. And since the story of Mose and the Pharao isn't meant to serve as an answer to the problem of evil, but in fact leaves the question untouched, why are you using it to build the greater good defense? Shouldn't the absurdity of the Greater Good Defense be apparent?
After all, it lay within God’s power to liberate the children of Israel without going through the rigmarole of the ten plagues.
This doesn't enhance the validity of the Greater Good Defense at all, rather the question why God's operations with Israel were like this remains open so far. And you fail to answer why the events in Israel's liberation went the way they did. This doesn't give you the right to make the holy, loving and omnipotent only God the (secret, primary, decretive) origin of sin, for the scriptures are clear that sin is the opposite of God's will.
Concerning Jesus crucifixion and God's predestination thereof. I lately wrote a post on the calvinistic use of Acts 2,23 and 4,27 on that. The case of God's foreordination of Jesus' death in no way supports the calvinistic theodicy but wrongly generalizes an exceptional case.
You should repudiate the Greater Good Defense and the Doctrines of Grace!
-a helmet
Helmet,
ReplyDeleteYour comments miss the point from start to finish. I don't have to address your specific contention regarding a Reformed theodicy. Rather, it's sufficient for me to mount an argument from analogy.
Your general argument against a Reformed theodicy was your claim that if God uses evil means to achieve a goal, then that's incompatible with God's omnipotence.
To overturn your argument, all I have to do is cite a few counterexamples in which God uses evil means to achieve his goal.
The specific goal is irrelevant. Either such actions are compatible with God's omnipotence or not. If they're compatible in one case, then they're compatible in another.
Likewise, I don't have to interpret Acts 2:23 Calvinistically for my counterargument to go through. It's a sufficient rebuttal to your position that God uses the evil means of evil men to achieve his goal. Even if you interpret Acts 2:23 in libertarian terms, that's irrelevant to the nub of your argument.
a helmet,
ReplyDeleteyou do not like the greater good defense and you are on record as saying you do not like the free-will defense so what exactly do you believe when it comes to this?
A Helmet said:
ReplyDelete---
Either God needs sin to reach a greater goal -- then he is limited in power.
---
I think you're operating with a strange concept of omnipotence. Here's just a few of the many things that God can't do:
1) God can't cease to exist.
2) God can't make four-sided triangles.
3) God can't sin.
4) God can't be merciful to people who haven't sinned.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteTo put it simply again:
Either God needs evil to realize his greater good. Then he is limited in power. Or the way through evil is itself desired by God. Then he is evil himself.
Do you see the dilemma? Do you see that the reformed answer to the logical problem of evil is fallacious through and through?
Why are so many skeptics not convinced by the Greater Good Defense? Are they just stupid? Lacking discernment? I guess the rub is rather in the Greater Good Defense than in the skeptic!
Note, theodicy is a rational response to reconcile God's omnipotence, omniscience, and his love and goodness with the presence of evil in the world. Don't you see how the Greater Good Defense utterly fails to solve this trilemma?
Regarding the case of Jesus' death and man's involvement and God's foreordination of it, note that this is a case where the greater good that came by it has been made known. Furthermore, it is an explicitly unique case where God ordained sin against himself being the victim. Calvinists now fall into the trap of a Hasty generalization fallacy (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization), which in this case is at the same time a case of "Cherry Picking": A single case shall serve as a pattern for all. But it is ignored that the single case is exceptional and hence, the generalization illegitimate.
So the calvinistic conclusion, based on faulty genralization is: "God ordained for wicked men to kill Jesus -- therefore he ordained for Cain to kill Abel."
That's simply silly and betrays once again that the reformed "proof-texts" for God's authorship of sin, Acts 2,23 and 4,27 don't hold water.
It's a sufficient rebuttal to your position that God uses the evil means of evil men to achieve his goal.
I don`t deny that there is scriptural support where God does turn man`s sinful actions into greater good. But he does so in spite of the evil, not because he needs/desires to utilize it per se. It is absolutely illegitimate to use this as a theodicy! Whence evil anyway? - In particular, I commented on 2 Chronicles 18,22 and 10,15 that treat of God being involved in evils.
You should abandon the Greater Good Defense.
--
Ben,
I'm going to write about this and can't give hasty or simplified answers now. Easysolutionism, the claim to be able to put everything into simple little boxes and to always have easy answers to every problem, hasn't contributed much to the question. But I'm going to write on this thoroughly.
-a helmet
"Either God needs evil to realize his greater good. Then he is limited in power."
ReplyDeletePremise: God needs evil to realize his greater good.
Conclusion: Then he is limited in power.
The premise above is false. God did not create the world or anything in it out of necessity. Romans 9:22-23 says that God prepared vessels of wrath in order to make known his glory to his vessels of mercy. God could have not created the world and kept his glory to Himself.
"Or the way through evil is itself desired by God. Then he is evil himself."
Premise: The way through evil is itself desired by God.
Conclusion: Then he is evil himself.
The conclusion here is false if you add another premise: "God desires to make known his glory (e.g. justice, mercy, etc.) to his vessels of mercy".
"Calvinists now fall into the trap of a Hasty generalization fallacy"
ReplyDeleteHave you considered that you might be engaging in the fallacy of special pleading? If it's okay for God to pre-ordain evil for the crucifixian, why not other events?
A HELMET SAID:
ReplyDelete“Or the way through evil is itself desired by God. Then he is evil himself. Do you see the dilemma?”
A false dilemma based on a simple-minded characterization. God doesn’t “desire” evil in and of itself. God “desires” the outcome. He approves to the means purely with a view to the outcome–and not in isolation to the outcome.
“Do you see that the reformed answer to the logical problem of evil is fallacious through and through?”
I don’t need to debate a reformed theodicy. You’re unable to follow either my argument or your own.
You used a general argument to disprove a reformed theodicy. A general argument based on the alleged incompatibility between divine omnipotence and the use of evil means.
You then deployed that general argument to disprove a specific thesis: reformed theodicy.
I don’t have to discuss the specific thesis to disprove your conclusion. I only need to overturn your general argument. You’re replies are irrelevant and obtuse.
If an omnipotent God frequently uses evil means, then the use of evil means is compatible with God’s omnipotence.
Therefore, your general argument is fallacious. How you deploy your general argument in reference to the problem of evil is irrelevant. It’s sufficient for me to invalidate your general argument by citing examples in which God uses evil means to achieve a goal. The identity of the goal is irrelevant to the counterargument.
“Why are so many skeptics not convinced by the Greater Good Defense? Are they just stupid? Lacking discernment? I guess the rub is rather in the Greater Good Defense than in the skeptic!”
Sceptics, being skeptics, reject every theodicy under the sun.
“Regarding the case of Jesus' death and man's involvement and God's foreordination of it, note that this is a case where the greater good that came by it has been made known.”
Once again, you’re not paying attention. My counterargument doesn’t depend on a predestinarian interpretation of Acts 2:23. I accept the predestinarian interpretation, but that’s irrelevant to my counterargument. For the sake of argument, I could stipulate a libertarian interpretation of Acts 2:23. Makes no difference in rebutting your objection.
“Furthermore, it is an explicitly unique case where God ordained sin against himself being the victim. Calvinists now fall into the trap of a Hasty generalization fallacy (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization), which in this case is at the same time a case of "Cherry Picking": A single case shall serve as a pattern for all. But it is ignored that the single case is exceptional and hence, the generalization illegitimate.”
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing unique, exceptional, or singular, about the fact that God uses evil means to achieve his purposes. We can cite instance after instance from the pages of Scripture.
“So the calvinistic conclusion, based on faulty genralization is: ‘God ordained for wicked men to kill Jesus -- therefore he ordained for Cain to kill Abel.’ That's simply silly and betrays once again that the reformed ‘proof-texts’ for God's authorship of sin, Acts 2,23 and 4,27 don't hold water.”
What is silly is your inept, straw man argument. Calvinists don’t infer the predestination of Abel’s murder from the predestined murder of Christ. They don’t infer the predestination of Abel’s murder from Acts 2:23. Rather, predestination is a theological construct based on a wide range of Scriptures. Having established the general construct, it’s then applicable to specific cases.
“I don`t deny that there is scriptural support where God does turn man`s sinful actions into greater good. But he does so in spite of the evil, not because he needs/desires to utilize it per se.”
There wouldn’t be evil in the first place to put to better use unless God knowingly made a world with evil. So it’s not merely “in spite” of evil, as if God had to play the hand he was dealt. No, God is the dealer.
Hello Neal,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response to my comments. You seem to be presenting the same objections that Peter Pike raised above. Namely, that some of God's attributes could not be displayed without the existence of evil, like his justice and mercy and therefore, evil is necessary to make known the fulness of God's essence. According to this view, the presence of evil is necessary because else grace and justice couldn't ever be experienced. In order for grace to become real, the culpable evil must first be real. God's role as a redeemer is only manifestable by the existence of sin.
However this puts the cart before the horse. It reverses cause and effect. The concepts of grace and mercy presume evil and therefore cannot contribute anything to the question of its origin. The defense becomes even more odd when the reverse of mercy, that is, God's wrath is applied the same standard to. After all, God's attributes include the hatred of all evil and what's antipodal to the divine essence, right? In order for this divine aversion to be revealed, even the wrath must be exerted as an immanent, holy attribute of God. Therefore evil is necessary for God to have something to hate and to exert his wrath in the first place. In other words, the terms mercy, justice and wrath are undefinable without the presumed concept of evil and hence, God's eternal attributes mercy and justice hinge on the existence of evil! Thus, evil would just be an eternal necessity being intrinsically connected to God's attributes of mercy and wrath.
So the display of attributes argument puts the cart before the horse and doesn't answer the mystery of why there is evil anyway.
This should sufficiently demonstrate the absurdity of this view.
Have you considered that you might be engaging in the fallacy of special pleading? If it's okay for God to pre-ordain evil for the crucifixian, why not other events?
No, quite to the contrary. Special pleading is the application of another standard to a particular case, treating the case as an exception from the rule and claiming to apply different rules to this case - but without actually saying why this particular case is so special and justifies a special treatment.
So special pleading is the treatment of one case as a special one.
I'm not doing this at all, because it is absolutely clear why and in which way the case of Jesus' crucifixion and man's involvement therein IS a special case! And that there ARE good reasons to treat this case as an exception. So this is not special pleading.
On the other hand, the reformed conclusion that since God ordained for sinful men to kill Jesus therefore he must have ordained for Cain to kill Abel, is a generalization fallacy because it disregards the uniqueness of God's salvific work in Christ's death.
-a helmet
A HELMET SAID:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for your response to my comments. You seem to be presenting the same objections that Peter Pike raised above. Namely, that some of God's attributes could not be displayed without the existence of evil, like his justice and mercy and therefore, evil is necessary to make known the fulness of God's essence. According to this view, the presence of evil is necessary because else grace and justice couldn't ever be experienced. In order for grace to become real, the culpable evil must first be real. God's role as a redeemer is only manifestable by the existence of sin."
Yeah, I don't know where Peter got such a crazy idea. Maybe by reading crazy stuff like Jn 9:3,39; Rom 9:17,22-23; 11:32, Gal 3:22, &c.
A Helmet said:
ReplyDelete---
According to this view, the presence of evil is necessary because else grace and justice couldn't ever be experienced.
---
Steve already beat me by pointing one of the references, but yeah I was just gonna say:
"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory...?" (Rom. 9:22-23).
Seems to me that A Helmet has a disagreement with Paul, because Paul specifically floats the concept of God's predestination (you know, vessels of wrath and mercy) occuring "IN ORDER to make known the riches of his glory" etc.
Makes me wonder why Paul would put the cart before the horse, especially since he was inspired by God at the time.... Man, crazy 1C Jews!
From elsewhere:
ReplyDeleteGene,
No, I don't think God wanted sin to enter the world. The reason I asked this question is because there was a yes/no-poll on that questioin recently at www.reformedvoices.com and the result was almost even. It seems like there are varying opinions about the question whether God wanted sin to enter the world even in reformed circles.
A Helmet is going to say that this conflicts with the omnipotence of God
No, it would conflict with God's love, holiness and benevolence.
-a helmet
Another case of A Helmet being unable to follow an argument. I said what I said in reference to the Greater Good Defense, which according to his own article AH claims violates the omnipotence of God. Now he's claiming that it would conflict with God's love, benevolence, and goodness. Which is it?
Then, he admits that he doesn't believe God wanted sin to enter the world. Okay, well since sin did, in fact, enter into it, then AH is the one who doesn't believe in God's omnipotence, since something God did not desire to occur did, in fact, occur.
He needs to acquaint himself with the concept of transference. He's projecting his conclusion onto our theodicy and not his own.
Note that elsewhere, AH was also the one accusing Calvinists of not using the Scriptures alone to substantiate their positions...but where is his exegetical foundation for his theodicy? Indeed where is his theodicy at all? Who here is the one using the Scriptures? AH? No.
"Perhaps a helmet has been playing too much footfall without a helmet! That might explain his disorientation.
ReplyDelete"So the display of attributes argument puts the cart before the horse and doesn't answer the mystery of why there is evil anyway."
ReplyDeleteIt's not a mystery. The Bible tells us. At this point, it seems to me you find yourself in the position of the man asking the question "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" (Rom 9:19) The only answer I can give you is Paul's answer in Rom 9:20-23.
"I'm not doing this at all, because it is absolutely clear why and in which way the case of Jesus' crucifixion and man's involvement therein IS a special case! And that there ARE good reasons to treat this case as an exception. So this is not special pleading."
ReplyDeleteNobody denies that the crucifixion was a unique event. But you are claiming that in this case, it is acceptable for God to pre-ordain evil. Why does the uniqueness of this case make it acceptable for God to do this and not other events? Just pointing out the uniqueness is not enough. You have to show why it is relevant as well if you want to avoid special pleading.
"On the other hand, the reformed conclusion that since God ordained for sinful men to kill Jesus therefore he must have ordained for Cain to kill Abel,"
That's an interesting refutation of a straw-man argument there. Can you point to any reformed writings that make the above argument?
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteI provided a response to your remarks at my blog because it turned out to be quite long:
combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/07/reply-to-triabloggers-on-absurdity-of.html
-a helmet
Peter Pike,
ReplyDeleteDid you notice that the text you are citing, Romans 9,22-23, is posing a question? And that the question is in fact answered by Paul in the following elaboration?
Paul is not identifying God as the orign/author of sin. Ripping texts out of context and coherence is fallacious.
You might also read my response at
combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/07/reply-to-triabloggers-on-absurdity-of.html
about the man without the wedding garment and the silliness of the Greater Good Defense.
-a helmet
I said what I said in reference to the Greater Good Defense, which according to his own article AH claims violates the omnipotence of God. Now he's claiming that it would conflict with God's love, benevolence, and goodness. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteGene, you may choose which it is. You may choose whether you throw God's goodness out of the window or his power. As a third option you might also deny the reality of evil and just call evil good. The point is, the Greater Good Defense always ends up distorting the christian God and misrepresenting Him.
Then, he admits that he doesn't believe God wanted sin to enter the world.
Do you marvel at this? The notion that God wanted the opposite of his will is so blatantly outlandish that it defies any reason and christian spirit. No, I'm not getting personal or polemic here, but this is just absurd. In fact you cannot provide a reasonable scriptural foundation that God wanted sin to enter the world.
Okay, well since sin did, in fact, enter into it, then AH is the one who doesn't believe in God's omnipotence, since something God did not desire to occur did, in fact, occur.
You err. I hold to both God's omnipotence and his love. But you should also read the comment response I just posted on my blog for the sake of length. It helps to show why such remarks of yours are so utterly false.
combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/07/reply-to-triabloggers-on-absurdity-of.html
-a helmet
Neal,
ReplyDeletesee also my response to Peter.
That's an interesting refutation of a straw-man argument there. Can you point to any reformed writings that make the above argument?
When Calvinists explain their Greater Good Defense they always draw on the example of Jesus' crucifixion as the first or even the only example how God predestines sin. Sadly that's true and by no means a straw man argument. For example see "Letters to a Mormon Elder" by James White.
It commits exactly this generalization fallacy.
-a helmet
A Helmet said:
ReplyDelete---
Did you notice that the text you are citing, Romans 9,22-23, is posing a question?
---
Did you notice it was rhetorical?
AH said:
---
And that the question is in fact answered by Paul in the following elaboration?
---
No, the rhetorical question is itself the very answer to the previous question asked. Because you see, here's the flow of conversation:
Paul says, "God predestines some to salvation and he hardens others."
People such as you retort, "Then why does God still blame me? Wo can resist His will?"
Paul responds: "Who are you to talk back to God? He's the potter, you're just the lowly clay." And then gives that rhetorical question IN RESPONSE TO THE REJOINDER OFFERED.
In other words, the rhetorical question answered the charge, "Why does God still blame us?" by saying, "What if God did all this so that the objects of His mercy would grasp His glory?"
He's not answering that question, AH, because it is itself a question designed to counter the previous question.
AH said:
---
Paul is not identifying God as the orign/author of sin.
---
Given that no one has said it does, you're attacking windmills with much gusto once again.
AH said:
---
When Calvinists explain their Greater Good Defense they always draw on the example of Jesus' crucifixion as the first or even the only example how God predestines sin.
---
What about Joseph in Genesis? Has no Calvinist ever used that? What about Assyria in Isaiah? Has no Calvinist ever used that?
"Ripping texts out of context and coherence is fallacious."
ReplyDeleteAH, this is an odd thing to say since the context utterly destroys your argument. Romans 9:22-23 is a rhetorical question given as part of Paul's reply to the question he anticipates the reader having in verse 19. And why does Paul anticipate this question? Because he just got done explaining that God has mercy on whom He desires, and hardens whom He desires. This is the same pattern found in Job, when he questions God, God's response is a series of rhetorical questions that Job cannot answer.
"When Calvinists explain their Greater Good Defense they always draw on the example of Jesus' crucifixion as the first or even the only example how God predestines sin."
Even though the above is clearly a false characterization, please answer this question: Isn't even just one example sufficient to establish the claim?
Here's another example counterexample to your claim: God hardened pharoah's heart so that he could show His glory. Let me anticipate your next move. You will claim that this too is a special case.
Hello Peter Pike,
ReplyDeleteDid you notice [Romans 9,22-23] was rhetorical?
No, that is not a rhetorical question. Again, here is the text: "22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath- prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory"
How is this rhetorical? The author is talking about God's longsuffering and patience towards the wicked. These verses aren't even translated as questions in all bible versions, some put it like an establishment: God was patient towards the wicked and slow to wrath so that his glory might be known to the objects of mercy. Paul is going to explain why the judgment did not come as expected and how the Gentiles are going to be involved in God's salvation. How this is a rhetorical question is completely beyond me. If it were, the original text should bear it out clearly that verse 22 is necessarily phrased as a question, yet it doesn't. It might as well be a plain statement, rather than a question at all.
People such as you retort, "Then why does God still blame me? Wo can resist His will?"Paul responds: "Who are you to talk back to God? He's the potter, you're just the lowly clay." And then gives that rhetorical question IN RESPONSE TO THE REJOINDER OFFERED.
So with rhetorical question you meant verse 19. It is about God's hardening. Obviously the question is: Do we know anything about how the hardening of God actually works? Do we know what's exactly going on when God hardens someone?
(continue)
ReplyDeleteNow, those who retort here are not people like me, a helmet, but obviously the imaginary objector is someone who doesn't know the "hardening mechanism" and therefore lacks understanding. According to Calvinism the hardening is unfathomable and unexplicable. Similarly, the objector here doesn't understand why God hardens someone, it is someone who doesn't understand God's dealings here (like a Calvinist?). In fact Calvinists draw on this verse very frequently yet don't know how the hardening mechanism works. The question that Calvinists don't answer is this: How does God harden? The imaginary objector doesn't know this either, hence the complaint. And you cannot know it unless you continue to follow Paul's elaboration, that's why Paul posed the rhetorical question. He is going to reveal a mystery nobody could know before. Calvinists portray the hardening as inscrutable, as if God didn't provide any further information about that. Just like the ignorant objector.
So how does God's hardening mechanism work and why is it important to read further, keep the context in mind and don't do "proof-texting"? Because the whatabouts of the hardening are further explained.
(continue)
ReplyDeleteIn verse 32 it says. "They stumbled over the stumbling-stone. 32 As it is written:See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.
This stone is Jesus Christ. The stone has two functions. It is either saving or hardening. Saving for those who trust in him. It is hardening to those who reject him. In which way is it God who is doing the hardening? Because it says "I [the Lord] lay the stone". Jesus Christ is God's sovereign solution. There are two options what to do with him. Believe or disobey. He has two roles: Savior or judge. The gospel is saving to those who believe and condemning to those who reject Christ.
1 Peter 2,7-8 puts it like this:
"Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, 8 and,A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. They stumble because they disobey the message- which is also what they were destined for."
--------------
Jesus Christ as the cornerstone is the hardening instrument of God.
--------------
The gospel hardens those who refuse to believe. This is exactly the "hardening mechanism" the objector in Romans 9,17 doesn't know. Hence the complaint.
Another explanation of the hardening mechanism of God is the law. Who gave the law? God did. Was the law meant to save? No, it was to convict of sin and the more you strive to get saved by the law, the more you get hardened. Since the law is by God, God is hardening:
Verse 31: "but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works."
Furthermore, God has been hardening the Gentiles due to their prior wickedness. Romans 1,18-32 is Paul's own treatise of this. God's "giving them over" to a wicked lifestyle is such. And this is also true for Pharaoh's hardening. So the apostle Paul himself provides information about what it means for God to harden people. The ones who marvel are Calvinists. But remember, the objector in 9,17 marvels also. Because he lacks discernment.
By the way did you read my post about the man without wedding clothing? He is utterly surprised why he is expelled from the wedding feast and thought he was welcome! Consider also the foolish virgins who don't understand why they aren't admitted when they later have managed to get their light! This lack of understanding is a consequence of hardening. Basically, if you don't understand the hardening, it's because you are hardened.
-a helmet
According to Calvinism the hardening is unfathomable and unexplicable
ReplyDeleteFalse. The WCF and LBCF2 speak to this. You're imputing things to "Calvinism" that simply are not true.
Note this well...on the one hand, A Helmet says that Calvinists seek easy answers to mysteries, yet on the other, when Calvinism chalks something up to mystery, A Helmet provides the answer.
Think on that.
Do you marvel at this? The notion that God wanted the opposite of his will is so blatantly outlandish that it defies any reason and christian spirit.
So, you're the one who begins with a notion of what is reasonable and Christian and then proceeds from there.
No, I'm not getting personal or polemic here,
You actions belie your words.
but this is just absurd.
Then why does evil exist?
In fact you cannot provide a reasonable scriptural foundation that God wanted sin to enter the world.
Sure I can: Romans says God bound them (both Jew snd Gentile) over so that He could show mercy to all (both Jew and Gentile).
Steve has already cited others. You simply cannot escape the notion that God in some sense wanted sin to enter the world, or else it would not exist.
If you say something happened that God did not desire, then you, not we, are denying God's omnipotence.
"How is this rhetorical? The author is talking about God's longsuffering and patience towards the wicked."
ReplyDeleteYou left out the part about them being prepared for destruction.
"These verses aren't even translated as questions in all bible versions, some put it like an establishment"
Go look up the definition of a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.
"If it were, the original text should bear it out clearly that verse 22 is necessarily phrased as a question, yet it doesn't. It might as well be a plain statement, rather than a question at all."
What exactly is your definition of a rhetorical question? One of the properties of a rhetorical question is that it can be rephrased as a statement. Or if you prefer, "Isn't it true that one of the properties of a rhetorical question is that it can be rephrased as a statement?" (note if you try to answer this you clearly don't understand the concept of a rhetorical question)
"So with rhetorical question you meant verse 19"
You've got it completely bass ackwards. Verse 19 is not a rhetorical question, it is a completely serious question that Paul anticipates the reader asking. A rhetorical question is one in which no answer is expected. If it were a rhetorical question, why does Paul answer it?
"God was patient towards the wicked and slow to wrath so that his glory might be known to the objects of mercy."
That's not quite what the text says. It says he endured with patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction to make known his glory upon the vessels of mercy which he prepared for glory. If that's not enough to convince you, go back and read verses 20-21.
AH, you said this:
"Jesus Christ as the cornerstone is the hardening instrument of God."
Then you said this:
"The gospel hardens those who refuse to believe. This is exactly the "hardening mechanism" the objector in Romans 9,17 doesn't know."
Then you said this:
"Another explanation of the hardening mechanism of God is the law."
For someone who claims to know the hardening mechanism of God, you sure seem to be all over the place. But then you even have the audacity to say this:
"Basically, if you don't understand the hardening, it's because you are hardened."
Given your apparent confusion, does that mean you are hardened? You are engaging in pure speculation and trying to read it back into the text.
But having said that, whatever the "hardening instrument" is, you are sounding like a Calvinist. You don't seem to be disputing the fact that God has mercy on some, and he hardens some. Calvinists don't deny that God uses means, so what exactly is your objection to Calvinism?
Neal said:
ReplyDelete---
(note if you try to answer this you clearly don't understand the concept of a rhetorical question)
---
Which reminds me of a Simpson's episode when Lisa is singing "How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?" and Homer responds: "Seven" (or some similar number).
Lisa: Dad, it's a rhetorical question. Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?
Homer: (sarcastically) Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?
In any case....
You can count the many rhetorical questions I used in my response to A Helmet, just because I was sure he didn't understand what a rhetorical question was. Amazingly enough, A Helmet even uses rhetorical questions, apparently without realizing what he's doing.
Further, I find it amazing that he says of Romans 9: "It might as well be a plain statement, rather than a question at all" which just is what a rhetorical question is.
Oh well. Responding much further to A Helmet is only useful if you like talking to yourself, because he certainly can't follow your side of the conversation.
BTW:
ReplyDeleteAH said:
---
Did you notice that the text you are citing, Romans 9,22-23, is posing a question?
---
And yet:
---
These verses aren't even translated as questions in all bible versions, some put it like an establishment...
---
I'd ask "So which one is it?" but that would be a rhetorical question, since the answer is obviously "Whichever one A Helmet needs it to be at whatever moment you ask him."
The blog against the doctrines of Grace is dedicated to dealing with the various scriptural pillars served up by Calvinists to buttress their doctrines. Of course the passage we've been discussing here is such a pillar. That means, I'm going to deal with the text in Romans 9 on my blog as well.
ReplyDelete-a helmet
Neal,
ReplyDelete|You left out the part about them being prepared for destruction|
God is patient and slow to wrath to the wicked in order to show the riches of his mercy. Paul is saying, that God is bearing patiently the vessels of wrath though he could have destroyed them long ago. The judgment on the wicked, according to Paul, is a settled deal. So they are appointed (prepared) for destruction. This is yet postponed. This doesn`t deal with the whence and why of evil and sin and not with its origin anyway. God is not said to predestine sin here! "prepared for destruction" is the verdict of God that has been pronounced on the wicked. Paul is explaining the delay of the destruction of the wicked.