Kehrhelm Kröger (aka a helmet) has offered a pseudoresponse to my post critiquing his attack on Reformed theodicy.
One of his persistent problems is that he’s still fixated on Reformed theodicy. But as I explained to him, I don’t need to prove Reformed theodicy to disprove his attack on Reformed theodicy. I only need to disprove the general argument he used.
Since this has been explained to him on several occasions now, I have to assume that he’s either too dense to grasp the explanation, or else he gets it, but chooses to ignore it because he can’t deal with it.
He then devotes most of his post to the parable of the wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14). Needless to say, this has precisely nothing to do with question, which a helmet himself volunteered, of whether God wanted sin to enter the world.
Moreover, his meandering exposition hardly amounts to genuine exegesis of his chosen prooftext.
“Now Steve, what does this have to do with your question above?”
Nothing.
Next question?
“It is remarkable that the narrative is silent here. And here lies the key to the parable. The man cannot explain how it was possible for sin to enter God's world.”
Since the narrative was never about the origin of evil, the silence of the narrative on that question is altogether unremarkable.
“Steve, I, a helmet tell you that you will never, ever be able to reconcile the above trilemma. Natural man's hand and feet are bound and he cannot make any move towards a solution to that problem! You are in the spiritual darkness where you have no discernment regarding the truth about God. The one you call your God you do not know, Steve!”
Of course, an obvious problem with this tactic is that it’s reversible. What prevents me from saying the same thing to a helmet?
“The ‘Greater Good Defense’ is just one among many man-made attempts to reach God by man's easysolutionism.”
Aside from the fact that we can find the essentials of the greater good defense in the Bible itself, a helmet’s last-ditch appeal to esoteric wisdom is a perfect candidate for “easysolutionism.” When his back is to the wall, he flashes his Illuminati membership card.
“The omnipotent and perfectly holy, loving God is not the author of sin in any sense.”
Well, in one respect I agree. The “author of sin” is just a metaphor. Unless a helmet can define this buzzword in literal terms, the buzzword is nonsensical. As such, it’s true that God is not the “author of sin” in any sense–given the nonsensicality of the buzzword.
“The notion that God wanted the opposite of his will is so blatantly outlandish that it defies any reason and christian spirit.”
Either God willingly allowed evil to enter the world or allowed it unwillingly. Yet a helmet’s attack on Reformed theodicy was predicated on God’s omnipotence. But an omnipotent God can prevent evil from entering the world. In that case, God willingly allowed evil to enter the world.
A helmet’s basic problem is that he begins with a preconception of what God is like. And he doesn’t allow anything to challenge that preconception.
As a result, a helmet is a closet atheist. He’s boxed himself into a corner wherein he’d cease to believe in God the instant God did anything at all to violate a helmet’s preconception of what God is like.
Speaking for myself, I’ve never felt it was my Christian duty to be more pious than the Bible. I don’t begin with an extrabiblical metaphor like “the author of sin,” the use that figurative stick to draw a line in the sand. I’d rather position myself wherever God has drawn the lines.
“Note, the parable ends with the words ‘Many are called but few are chosen’. God will not leave the elect in ignorance. They will know God and be worthy guests in his presence. The elect will not be left in their false man-made easysolution-boxes, but know the truth.”
In other words, I’m a goat rather than a sheep.
I wouldn’t necessarily be that harsh in my diagnosis of a helmet. But to judge by his performance thus far, I’d say a helmet plays too much football without a helmet.
Man, this "a helmet" guy is getting around! He was hanging around our website recently (DefendingContending). I tried reasoning to him from the Scriptures for the longest time. I might as well have been talking to a wall. He is so hung up on bashing Reformed theology that he will twist and turn and plant on its head any passage of Scripture that even hints at election, limited atonement, etc.
ReplyDeleteJust a sample in a nutshell: He claims that our name, which is written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world (Rev. 17:3), is the "new name" Jesus will write on a white stone (Rev 2:17). To summarize: Our name, that was written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world, wasn't written in the Book before the foundation of the world--even though it was. Confused? That's a preview of what is to come from this fellow.
I wanted to give you a heads-up about this guy. Don't let a thread go too long with him, because you will be more frustrated than anything, and he will still plug his ears and say "I can't hear you!!"
The ‘Greater Good Defense’ is just one among many man-made attempts to reach God by man's easysolutionism
ReplyDeleteSo, let's get this straight, shall we...
To say God willingly chose to allow sin to enter the world for a specific purpose is "easysolutionism."
Mkay.
But why isn't throwing up your hands and declaring it to be a mystery an easy solution?
A Helmet needs to present a coherent theodicy. We know he rejects the Free Will Defense. We know he rejects the Greater Good Defense. Okay, so what's his principled alternative?
Natural man's hand and feet are bound and he cannot make any move towards a solution to that problem! You are in the spiritual darkness where you have no discernment regarding the truth about God. The one you call your God you do not know, Steve!
In other words, those who affirm a theodicy that A Helmet denies are goats and not sheep?
Hello Fourpointer,
ReplyDeleteThanks for recalling this dialogue. Unfortunately, all my comments in that thread were deleted right away, so it isn't possible for anyone to check what the conversation was actually about. You weren't moderating that thread but I'd say you guys shouldn't erase comments, since your blog is dedicated to defending/contending for reformed theology and this makes only sense if even hostile comments are displayed. But of course, it's up to you guys.
Gene,
To say God willingly chose to allow sin to enter the world for a specific purpose is "easysolutionism."
Ascribing a good purpose to sin is absurd. Sin is the eternally meaningless and purposeless scandale. It is the opposite of God's will. So it is not God's will. Easysolutionism is the desire to put everything in little either-or boxes and provide simple solutions to every question. The entire Arminianism-versus-Calvinism controversy, which keeps being fuelled by the same arguments that have been warmed up over and over again for centuries since the Reformation, is based on easysolutionistic thinking patterns. Note, there is no progress -- the arguments you put forth in your Calvinism-versus-Arminianism controversy haven't changed since the Remonstrants. You have been running in circles since the beginning.
And one outstanding feature of that debate is the easysolutionistic mindset it is fuelled with.
But why isn't throwing up your hands and declaring it to be a mystery an easy solution?
It is but it is not a theodicy at all. Appeals to mystery don't answer the logical problem of easy.
A Helmet needs to present a coherent theodicy. We know he rejects the Free Will Defense. We know he rejects the Greater Good Defense. Okay, so what's his principled alternative?
I am going to do that. But it is a lot of work and surely doesn't fit into the scope of a comment thread!
Note, I have been responding here to the post against my attack on reformed theodicy. So I have been busy confirming the absurdity of the greater good defense so far. I will be writing on that subject too! But that doesn't exclude my right to point out the inconsistencies of reformed theodicy.
For instance, if God wills to utilize the means of evil to reach a greater good, then he is evil.
That is one option where the greater good defense can lead to. The other is to say the evil means are indispensable and so limiting God's possibiities and power.
Of course another option you might add to the mix is the denial of evil as evil - it must actually be good.
This seems to be your position, given your remarks on Romans 9. Well, this is just as absurd as the other options:
If God wills to utilize the means of evil in order to reach a greater goal, then these means are themselves part of the greater good. They are ultimately good themselves in some way, hence there is no evil.
A denial of the reality of evil however, is biblically just as untenable as the denial of God's omnipotence, omniscience or love.
This seems to be most calvinst's position - evil and sin serve good purposes so they cannot really be bad.
The problem is, the hardening of Jews and Gentiles is a work of God in an already fallen world. The Lord is in fact bringing good out of evil but in spite of their wickedness. The question, why the world is fallen anyway, isn't discussed there is it? So Paul is not discussing why there is evil anyway. To the contrary the reality of evil is biblically well supported.
Another absurdity of the Greater Good Defense mode "evil is ultimately a good means" is betrayed by the presence of culpability. In the Greater Good Defense there is no meaningful place for culpability.
those who affirm a theodicy that A Helmet denies are goats and not sheep?
That has nothing to do with a helmet. I'm not anyone's judge nor am I classifying anyone as sheep or goat.
-a helmet
A HELMET SAID:
ReplyDelete“Ascribing a good purpose to sin is absurd.”
So, according to you, God let sin to enter the world even though sin serves no good purpose. God had no good reason for permitting sin to enter the world. He just did, for the heck of it.
Given your position, why aren’t you an atheist?
BTW, you’re also failing to draw an obvious distinction. The fact that a sinner may have no good reason to sin doesn’t mean that God has no good reason for creating a sinner.
“Sin is the eternally meaningless and purposeless scandale.”
So God allowed a scandalous situation to transpire in his world for no good reason.
“It is the opposite of God's will.”
How is it the opposite of his will if he allowed something to happen which he was in a position to preempt? Did he allow it willingly or unwillingly? Either God was able, but unwilling to prevent evil–or unable, but willing to prevent evil.
If God unwillingly allowed evil, then you deny his omnipotence. Yet that was your core argument against Reformed theodicy.
“So it is not God's will.”
You seem to think that if you just say something or repeat yourself, that makes it true.
Your armchair objections are moot. Even if there were some antecedent plausibility to your objection, once we have actual evil, your armchair objection is mooted by the fact of evil. That’s not something you can treat as a hypothetical question.
“Easysolutionism is the desire to put everything in little either-or boxes and provide simple solutions to every question.”
You have no solution at all. You just put your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet.
“It is but it is not a theodicy at all. Appeals to mystery don't answer the logical problem of easy.”
You attacked Reformed theodicy on logical grounds. You said it conflicted with God’s omnipotence.
You don’t get to attack the opposing position on logical grounds, then shield your own position from logical scrutiny. It cuts both ways. If you think logic is a legitimate weapon to wield against Reformed theodicy, then it’s a legitimate weapon to wield against your own position. Spare us the special pleading.
“For instance, if God wills to utilize the means of evil to reach a greater good, then he is evil.”
That’s a non sequitur. Try again.
“The other is to say the evil means are indispensable and so limiting God's possibiities and power.”
That’s faulty at two levels. God frequently uses means to achieve his purpose. And he frequently uses evil means to achieve his purpose. Therefore, if you’re consistent with your principle, you should be an atheist.
If the use of evil means is incompatible with God’s omnipotence, then either you don’t believe in God or else you don’t believe that he is omnipotent.
For that matter, your objection would logically apply to the use of any means whatsoever.
“If God wills to utilize the means of evil in order to reach a greater goal, then these means are themselves part of the greater good. They are ultimately good themselves in some way, hence there is no evil…This seems to be most calvinst's position - evil and sin serve good purposes so they cannot really be bad.”
ReplyDeletei) Once again, you act as if this is a hypothetical question. But reality has already foreclosed certain hypothetical answers or denials. Once certain events have actually taken place (like the actual existence of evil), then you’re no longer at liberty to discount certain explanations in advance of the fact.
If God allows something, then you can’t very well tell us that God would never allow such a thing. And if he allows it, he either does so willingly or unwillingly. You say God is omnipotent. Therefore, he willingly allowed evil.
ii) You’re also being simple-minded. Is poison good or bad? Depends on what it’s used for. Poisoning your wife is bad, but poisoning a rat is good.
Likewise, is a tire iron good or bad? Well, if I have a flat tire, then it’s useful to have a tire iron in the trunk. But if I parachute into the middle of a desert, then I’d rather have a bottle of water in my backpack rather than a tire iron.
"Ascribing a good purpose to sin is absurd."
ReplyDeleteThen either:
A) Gen 50:20 is absurd
or
B) A helmet is wrong
I vote for option B.
"This seems to be most calvinst's position - evil and sin serve good purposes so they cannot really be bad."
No, this seems to be A Helmet's position. Stop projecting your faulty logic on calvinists.
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteAscribing a good purpose to sin is absurd, I said.
Sin is the transgression of the law of God (1 John 3,4). The transgression entails culpability. The one who sins is guilty before God. Is there any meaningful room for culpability in your system? Note how the bible describes the end of evil:
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev. 20,10)
What this means is, that there will never be a good outcome of evil. Its "evilness" stays forever. The sinfulness of sin never ends. There is no good result coming from it, ever! That's basically what the above bible verse conveys. In other words, the eternal purposelessness of sin is portrayed here.
Put differently, good trees bring forth good fruit, bad trees bring bad fruit. But note, a bad tree will never cease to bring bad fruit and instead one day start bearing good fruit. That never happens. Neither do the bad trees contribute any good to the maturation of the good trees. The only end of bad trees is that they'll be cut off and cast away.
Note, the parable of the wheat and tares. The tares don't contribute any good to the wheat, the farmer or anyone. It is only going to be discarded.
Given your position, why aren’t you an atheist?
The fool says in his heart, There is no God. (Psalm 14,1)
God is almighty, all-knowing, and all-loving. He is not in any way responsible for sin, neither in a "primary" nor in a "secondary" sense. Any attempt to locate the ultimate origin of evil in God, must fail! Not I am distorting the christian God.
BTW, you’re also failing to draw an obvious distinction. The fact that a sinner may have no good reason to sin doesn’t mean that God has no good reason for creating a sinner.
Note, the king instructed his servants to "invite to the wedding anyone you find". There were no conditions attached. The man was one among the many unconditionally invited ones "from the crossroads". So what? -- The problem was not the man itself, but a blemish: he was not wearing wedding attire (=he was unrighteous). Did God have a good purpose in calling even that fellow? Sure, "anyone" was an object of God's call and his love to attend the precious wedding feast. So God had a good reason, his benevolence towards everyone. The king nevertheless doesn't tolerate his street clothing. The bottom-line is, that the man could not say:
"You, the king must have wanted me anyway, otherwise I wouldn't possibly be here, right?"
But the king seems to disagree!
Sin is the eternally meaningless and purposeless scandale., I said.
Indeed. Sin is an intruder into God's world just like a burglar caught red-handed is a scandale! Just like the king has the man "tied hand and foot" lest he climbs in right away through the window, so God will exclude evil forever -- the purpose value? Zero!
If God unwillingly allowed evil, then you deny his omnipotence. Yet that was your core argument against Reformed theodicy.
My argument against Reformed theodicy is that you must deny his goodness or his power. You may choose which one you wish to throw overboard. As a third option you may deny the reality of evil. These are the ramifications of the Greater Good Defense. Throw overboard at least one of the orthodox affirmations of scriptural christianity. Now, its up to you to choose. In any case, reformed theodicy ends up distorting the christian God. If God cannot realize his goal in a straight, direct way without going through the "debt phase" of evil until his plans amortize in the future, the he is not omnipotent. An omnipotent God doesn't have to go into debt and borrow from evil in order to reach his goals.
I said:
ReplyDelete"if God wills to utilize the means of evil to reach a greater good, then he is evil."
If I want to kill someone in order to get money from him, while I could manage to get money another way, well, then I'm evil, no?
Need another example?
If I wilfully have someone killed in order to reach a certain position though I could well reach that position a legal way, then I'm pretty evil, am I not?
“The other is to say the evil means are indispensable and so limiting God's possibiities and power.” That’s faulty at two levels. God frequently uses means to achieve his purpose. And he frequently uses evil means to achieve his purpose. Therefore, if you’re consistent with your principle, you should be an atheist.
Steve, what you're saying is just an inventory of reality. But theodicy is about providing rational answers why there is evil, not the observation that God frequently uses means to achieve his purpose. Nobody denies that there are many bad things in the world and obviously much evil in the face of a holy God. Yet this is but an appraisal, where theodicy begins. This is basically saying, that obviously God has brought good out of evil in such and such case, hence that's a sufficient answer why there is evil anyway. No, no!
“If God wills to utilize the means of evil in order to reach a greater goal, then these means are themselves part of the greater good...."Once again, you act as if this is a hypothetical question. But reality has already foreclosed certain hypothetical answers or denials. Once certain events have actually taken place (like the actual existence of evil), then you’re no longer at liberty to discount certain explanations in advance of the fact.
Steve, theodicy is about the "actual existence of evil", which you say is a given reality. It's about explaining that reality. And the Greater Good Defense utterly fails to do so.
Since the narrative was never about the origin of evil, the silence of the narrative on that question is altogether unremarkable.
ReplyDeleteYou err. The parable is forensic and treats -among other things- of the judgment. In judgment you have to justify yourself. That is you have to account for your sins. And then you are quicker at the question of the "origin of evil" than you now think!
A HELMET SAID:
ReplyDelete“Is there any meaningful room for culpability in your system?”
I already distinguished between divine and human motives. Try to pay attention.
“What this means is, that there will never be a good outcome of evil.”
It means nothing of the kind. It merely means there is no good outcome for evildoers. For the damned.
That hardly means there’s no good outcome for anyone else. The Bible frequently discusses good outcomes for evil events.
“There is no good result coming from it, ever!”
Once again, you’re being obtuse. The fact that there’s no good result for the damned hardly means that no one else is the beneficiary.
“In other words, the eternal purposelessness of sin is portrayed here.”
That doesn’t mean evil serves no purpose in God’s plan. Just that evildoers are not the ultimate beneficiaries of their own evil.
“Not I am distorting the christian God.”
You attribute omnipotence to God. You admit that God can preempt the existence of evil. Yet you deny that evil serves any good purpose.
You are still making God responsible for evil. Since he could prevent it, he shares responsibility for the outcome.
The only way for you to exculpate God is if he has a good reason for permitting evil–which you deny.
“Note, the king instructed his servants…”
The parable has nothing to do with the origin of evil. You’re grasping at straws.
“Indeed. Sin is an intruder into God's world just like a burglar caught red-handed is a scandale!”
An “intruder” whom God knowingly and willingly allowed to burglarize the house. So did God have a good reason for allowing that to happen? Or does God allow horrendous evils to occur for no good reason? Not only does that make God responsible for evil, but blameworthy for evil.
“My argument against Reformed theodicy is that you must deny his goodness or his power. You may choose which one you wish to throw overboard. As a third option you may deny the reality of evil. These are the ramifications of the Greater Good Defense. Throw overboard at least one of the orthodox affirmations of scriptural christianity. Now, its up to you to choose.”
You’re the one who’s trapped inside your own dilemma. You admit that God has the power to prevent evil, but refrains from using his power to do so.
I have to assume that he’s either too dense to grasp the explanation, or else he gets it, but chooses to ignore it because he can’t deal with it.
ReplyDeleteThe Greater Good Defense is logically inconsistent. It fails to account for the why and whence of evil in the world.
If God does not realize the greater good without evil, then he is unwilling to do so or unable. If he is able but unwilling then he's malvolent, that is evil. If he is willing but unable (like an investor) then he isn't almighty.
If the way through evil is itself part of the desired goal then evil is not evil.
All three options are classical knock-out criteria for theodicies.
It's really that simple. You should repudiate the Greater Good Defense!
a helmet said...
ReplyDelete“If I want to kill someone in order to get money from him, while I could manage to get money another way, well, then I'm evil, no?__Need another example?__If I wilfully have someone killed in order to reach a certain position though I could well reach that position a legal way, then I'm pretty evil, am I not?”
i) Since you think that God could have achieved his aims without recourse to evil means, then you must believe that God is evil. After all, the world is full of evil, which–according to you–is totally unnecessary to the realization of any divine objective.
ii) Your examples fail to distinguish between using evil and doing evil.
iii) And you’re citing examples of unjustifiable action. That’s irrelevant to whether there are examples of justifiable action.
iv) Finally, you’re using examples of innocent victims.
“But theodicy is about providing rational answers why there is evil.”
Which I’ve done on many occasions.
“Not the observation that God frequently uses means to achieve his purpose.”
I’m answering you on your own grounds. You were the one who opposed omnipotence to the use of means.
“This is basically saying, that obviously God has brought good out of evil in such and such case, hence that's a sufficient answer why there is evil anyway.”
I never said that was a sufficient answer to the problem of evil. Rather, that’s a sufficient answer to your objection. Try not to be persistently obtuse.
“You err. The parable is forensic and treats -among other things- of the judgment. In judgment you have to justify yourself. That is you have to account for your sins. And then you are quicker at the question of the "origin of evil" than you now think!”
The parable does not pretend to address the fall of Lucifer or the fall of Adam–and the attendant consequences thereof.
Neal,
ReplyDeleteI guess the reformed usage of Genesis 50,20 is absurd. I will include this on my blog and provide a post on that.
Another loose cannon made of glass.
ReplyDeleteIs there any meaningful room for culpability in your system?”
ReplyDeleteI already distinguished between divine and human motives.
The problem is, according to Calvinism the human motives are subject to God`s predestination. The distinction is meaningless with respect to culpability.
It means nothing of the kind. It merely means there is no good outcome for evildoers. For the damned.
It means nothing of the kind. It merely means there is no good outcome for evildoers. For the damned.
Consider the bad/good plants, wheat and tares. The tares are not only destroyed themselves but are of no use to the farmer either. Nor are they contributing any benefit to the maturation of the wheat. By the way, this shows how outlandish the calvinistic idea of "common grace" is. According to this idea God's "common love" to the non-elect is to provide rain and sunshine even for the tares to grow. But the tares only hinder the wheat and so "common grace" only serves as a plague and a force against the wheat. Nourishing a bad tree only results in more bad fruit. So that's simply silly.
You are still making God responsible for evil. Since he could prevent it, he shares responsibility for the outcome.
What? The Most High One is not in the slightest sense responsible for evil! His creatures are! Recall the above about the calvinstic doctrine of God's predestination of human motives. So Calvinists are making God responsible for evil, not me.
Steve said
Your examples fail to distinguish between using evil and doing evil.
This distinction is meaningless with respect to the problem of evil. I just read your post on using evil and doing evil. One wonders what it has to do with theodicy! Seriously, if God uses evil (and isn't doing it), are these evil actions that he uses part of his plan? Where did these deeds originate from? Out of vaccum? Were they done before God planned to use them? Most Calvinsts will say no. Does the wicked human motivation or intention originate with God or not? -- You should abandon the hair-raising Greater Good Defense!
Finally, you’re using examples of innocent victims.
According to Calvinism, man was innocent before the fall. So what?
"I guess the reformed usage of Genesis 50,20 is absurd. I will include this on my blog and provide a post on that."
ReplyDeleteI think your helmet is on too tight because it's affecting your ability to accurately comprehend what your opponents are saying.
Neal,
ReplyDeleteNo. I am providing articulate answers to all objections, but note it is a lot all at once! By the way I have provided a response to your remark in the post on the authorship of Adams sin and Romans 9.
Regarding Genesis 50,20 I am going to deal with that on my blog as well.
"No. I am providing articulate answers to all objections"
ReplyDeleteI see your humility is quite intact too!
A HELMET SAID:
ReplyDelete“The problem is, according to Calvinism the human motives are subject to God`s predestination. The distinction is meaningless with respect to culpability.”
I’ve addressed the preconditions of culpability on multiple occasions. Why don’t you raise an objection I haven’t dealt with before, if you can.
“By the way, this shows how outlandish the calvinistic idea of ‘common grace’ is.”
To the contrary, it illustrates common grace just fine. If you deny sunshine and rain to the tares, you simultaneously deny sunshine and rain to the wheat. Drought kills wheat and tares alike.
You also have a persistent problem of resorting to picturesque metaphors as if picture language is a substitute for argument. It’s not. At most, it’s an illustration to accompany an argument. The illustration doesn't stand on its own.
So, to take a literal case, the genealogy of Christ contains sinners. Yet the outcome of that sinful conduit is the Incarnation. That’s a case of God using evil means to bring about a good result. Intentionally.
Likewise, the brothers of Joseph sinned by selling him into slavery. Yet there were beneficiaries to that transaction. In the long run, that sinful transaction providentially saved his brothers and their kinfolk from famine. And God planned it that way. God planned all along to use their sinful ways to accomplish a good purpose.
Likewise, God used sinful Pharaoh, sinful Nebuchadnezzar, sinful Cyrus, and so on and so forth, as instruments to implement his grand designs.
“So Calvinists are making God responsible for evil, not me.”
You clearly make him responsible when you admit that he could prevent evil, chose not to–yet you also deny that he had any good reason to allow evil in the first place.
“Seriously, if God uses evil (and isn't doing it), are these evil actions that he uses part of his plan?”
So you think evil has no place in God’s plan for the world? Is evil like an unplanned pregnancy?
If you think God foresaw evil, but made the world anyway, then he made the world with that outcome in mind. By making the world, he intended that result.
“Does the wicked human motivation or intention originate with God or not?”
Everything ultimately comes from God. But God made secondary agents and agencies as well.
“According to Calvinism, man was innocent before the fall. So what?”
Which is irrelevant to the examples you gave.
Steve said,
ReplyDelete"Likewise, the brothers of Joseph sinned by selling him into slavery. Yet there were beneficiaries to that transaction. In the long run, that sinful transaction providentially saved his brothers and their kinfolk from famine. And God planned it that way. God planned all along to use their sinful ways to accomplish a good purpose."
Note: God's good purpose in their sin does absolutely nothing to mitigate the evil of their action. They will be punished for their sin (if they died outside Christ). In other words, "Its 'evilness' stays forever. The sinfulness of sin never ends." As (sort of) illustrated by:
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev. 20,10)
But I have absolutely no clue how this passage is supposed to illustrate that there will never be a good outcome of evil, as A Helmet argued earlier.
A Helmet: I mean that. I really have no idea how you were making that connection. It's not just that I disagree with your conclusion--I don't even know what you're thinking.
AH said:
ReplyDelete---
The tares are not only destroyed themselves but are of no use to the farmer either. Nor are they contributing any benefit to the maturation of the wheat. By the way, this shows how outlandish the calvinistic idea of "common grace" is. According to this idea God's "common love" to the non-elect is to provide rain and sunshine even for the tares to grow. But the tares only hinder the wheat and so "common grace" only serves as a plague and a force against the wheat. Nourishing a bad tree only results in more bad fruit. So that's simply silly.
---
Jesus said:
---
"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
Oh yeah, reference is Matthew 13:24-30.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It's like watching a train wreck itself on logs across the track, only the train driver thinks he's bashed through them and is plugging along at 60 miles an hour to his destination.
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all adverse to that suggestion. Most of what AH says already stands as its own refutation. And seriously, who among us would hang out with someone that ditsy off-line?
ReplyDeleteJugulum,
ReplyDeleteBut I have absolutely no clue how [Rev 20,10] is supposed to illustrate that there will never be a good outcome of evil, as A Helmet argued earlier.
Ok, I'll explain this further. You speak of "outcome". What's that? It's basically the harvest of a work. Works are seed and the corresponding fruit is the "outcome" of that work. Now there are basically 2 sorts of seed (works) and likewise 2 sorts of fruit (outcome).
Good work = good seed
Good outcome = good fruit
Bad work = bad seed
Bad outcome = bad fruit
Now note, ultimately only the fruit (outcome) counts. If and only if the outcome (fruit) is good, then the seed is judged to be good.
So if there is a good outcome of evil then who is responsible for this good outcome? Who is responsible for this good fruit? The one who did the work, in other words, using that verse above, the devil, the beast and the false prophet! The one who sowed the seed that resulted in the good "outcome" is proven to be good! Note, every tree is judged by its fruit - never the other way round. So if there is a final good fruit (outcome) then it is due to the sower of the seed that led to the good outcome.
So there would be no ground for culpability as indicated by Rev. 20,10. That's what I meant.
Important: The distinction of different "desires" underlying a certain action is just a "smoke grenade", a waft of mist to cause a confusion that is irrelevant. There is no good-desire-versus-bad-desire distinction with respect to the see-tree-fruit pattern and with respect to the final evaluation of good and evil! That's nonsensial.
Again, if evil has some good "outcome", some good result, then who worked this outcome? the sower did! So if bad seed should ever result in good fruit (outcome) then the seed will prove to have been good all along and the sower as well. If you sow good, you are good - seen ultimately by harvest.
You seem to assume there is some good outcome of evil that is wrought in parallel to the evil tree, and some good fruit originating from a bad seed but that is reaped from somewhere else than the tree! That's the error.
-a helmet
Peter Pike,
ReplyDeleteYou see, the tares are not ripped out immediately, because they look so similar to the wheat and they can be easily mistaken for wheat when they are still small. That's why they are left growing until the harvest. Then, when both plants are big enough, they are easily distinguished. (Note, this patience and long-suffering is also the long-suffering of Romans 9,22-23). So there is no "good fruit" (=positive result, greater good) originating from the tares.
Note, the following is crucial: God of course does provide rain and sunshine even for the tares. Because it is to become apparent which are the wheat and which are the tares. This is the meaning of Romans 9,22-23.
But this doesn't mean God sowed the tares or that God wanted anyone to sow them, as Calvinists want us to believe.
The tares are appointed for destruction, but they aren't destroyed immediately. That doesn't mean God ordained for anyone to sow tares among his wheat field!
You see, there is no good outcome from the tares.
The absurdity that God sowed/initiated/willed wicked works which is clearly seen by the parable of the wheat and the weed, is in fact dealt with by Romans 9,22-23. In no way is God the initiator or preparer of vessels of destruction in the reformed sense. Here is the text again (KJV):
ReplyDelete"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory," (emphasis added)
Notice, the vessels of mercy were prepared by God but there is no mentioning that the vessels of destruction were prepared by God. The devil prepared this work at night (sowed tares on the field).
God's verdict is the postponed destruction: "No, let both [wheat and tares] grow till the harvest".
That's the parallel to Romans 9,22-23 --
God is not the ulitmate, primary, (secret) origin of evil! You guys ought to abandon the Greater Good Defense!
-a helmet
Notice, the vessels of mercy were prepared by God but there is no mentioning that the vessels of destruction were prepared by God. The devil prepared this work at night (sowed tares on the field).
ReplyDeleteYou're being patently dishonest with the text, A Helmet. In fact, God's preparation of vessels of wrath is the exact question Paul is addressing:
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills ... Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Who is it, in this passage, who makes both the honorable and dishonorable vessels, A Helmet? Just answer the question. Who is it? Is it God, or is it someone else? Does Satan come and take one lump, and make a dishonorable vessel, while God takes the other lump and makes an honorable one? No. It is God who makes both vessels. The text is as clear as day. Not even a total buffoon could fail to comprehend it on this point.
So, in fact, you are lying through your teeth when you say that "there is no mentioning that the vessels of destruction were prepared by God." No, A Helmet. This is a downright, flat-out fiction. You are bearing false witness against God himself since, in fact, he explicitly mentions, through Paul, that he prepared the vessels of destruction as well as the vessels of honor.
As someone who flagrantly twists God's word, A Helmet, you should be banned as an overt liar, and a wolf in (tattered) sheep's clothing.
A Helmet you have some interesting hermeneutical principals to say the least. Why not let scripture be interpreted by its immediate context instead of jumping all over the place trying to interpret everything through the lens of parables? We are supposed to let more clear passages interpret the less clear. You've got everything turned on its head.
ReplyDelete"Notice, the vessels of mercy were prepared by God but there is no mentioning that the vessels of destruction were prepared by God. The devil prepared this work at night (sowed tares on the field)."
As noted by a previous poster, this is just plain dishonesty. Fitted means the same thing as prepared in this context. The proof is verse 21, were it says the potter (e.g., God) made one vessel for honorable use and the other for common use.
If you can't start at the beginning of Romans 9 and just follow the natural flow of Paul's argument instead of ripping verses out of their immediate context and interpreting them in the light of unrelated parabolic passages, I really don't think there is much left to discuss here.
A Helmet, your god is too small. You take one attribute of God (his revealed will) and elevate it to a more prominent position such that his other attributes are necessarily diminished (God's sovereignty) or outright denied (his decretive will) and try to fit everything into the easysolutionist box of his revealed will. Do you know what we call people who elevate one attribute of God over all others? Traditionally we call these people heretics.
That God pre-ordains everything that comes to pass while at the same time preserves human freedom is a profound mystery that none of us can comprehend. That God pre-ordains the evil that we see yet holds man accountable for his sins is also a profound mystery. But I don't have to have all the answers fitted into your nice neat little heretical easysolutionist box. We are meant to struggle with these truths, for it gives us pause to reflect on the greatness of God. That He is incomprehensible to our finite minds should not surprise us, nor should it cause us to start discarding those things which we don't understand. If we could get our minds around God, he would not be God, but an impotent, pathetic imposter not worthy of our admiration.
A HELMET SAID:
ReplyDelete“So if there is a good outcome of evil then who is responsible for this good outcome?”
You’re confounding two distinct issues:
i) Is an agent responsible for his evil actions?
ii) Can evil actions have good consequences?
These are distinct and separable issues. It’s a simply matter to illustrate (ii), using both Biblical and extrabiblical examples.
Introducing (i) into the discussion is irrelevant to (ii). You’re the one who’s tossing a smoke grenade into the debate by trying to confuse different issues.
“Important: The distinction of different ‘desires’ underlying a certain action is just a ‘smoke grenade’, a waft of mist to cause a confusion that is irrelevant. There is no good-desire-versus-bad-desire distinction with respect to the see-tree-fruit pattern and with respect to the final evaluation of good and evil! That's nonsensial.”
There are two different agents in play: God and the creature. The “tree” represents the creature. God is not the tree. God planted the tree. Therefore, we can easily distinguish between divine and human motives.
Hello DBT & Neal,
ReplyDeleteRegarding Romans 9,17-21 and your critique, I have posted an answer here
combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/07/concerning-triablogue-and-romans-917-21.html
because it is a little long.
Neal,
ReplyDeleteWhy not let scripture be interpreted by its immediate context instead of jumping all over the place trying to interpret everything through the lens of parables?
Regarding the parable of the wheat and the tares, let me say the seed-tree-fruit analogy is prevalent in scripture anyway. That parable is just one example thereof. Sow good - reap good. Sos bad - reap bad. That's a principal in scripture beyond arcane parables. There is not the ambiguity you seem to find fault with.
Fitted means the same thing as prepared in this context. The proof is verse 21, were it says the potter (e.g., God) made one vessel for honorable use and the other for common use.
That's a rhetorical question whose actuality the author (Paul) is yet going to scrutinize in the following elaboration. Note, the diatriby style is prevalent in that epistle. Paul is leading a discussion. The reality of whether God actually makes vessels of destruction is utterly open. Only if you raise up a shutoff "No further reading recommended" can you make such a claim. No, you are a bit to hasty with that text!
your god is too small. You take one attribute of God (his revealed will) and elevate it to a more prominent position such that his other attributes are necessarily diminished (God's sovereignty)
Excuse me, but these words cannot be taken seriously. I ask you: Is there anything about God's will which he has not revealed? Have you ever read Eph 1,9? God's has made known the mystery of his will. A mystey made known is no mystery anymore. Are you suggesting that God concealed some precious details? If you suggest that sovereignty=inscrutability then you are in grave danger for it is written:
"This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17,3)
An inscrutable God doesn't save you, Neal! If you don't know God, he doesn't know you either!
Honestly, I don't want to be polemic or personal here but what you're saying cannot be taken seriously!
or outright denied (his decretive will) and try to fit everything into the easysolutionist box of his revealed will.
God's decretive will has been made known. A mystery made known is no more mystery. Question: What is the mystery? Is there any? - Nope.
I believe in all attributes of the christian God that christendom has historically hold to.
If we could get our minds around God, he would not be God, but an impotent, pathetic imposter not worthy of our admiration.
Read John 17,3 Matthew 25,12 and John 6,45 -- okay if I disagree with you here? I don't understand how it makes God impotent an unworthy if I can know Him!? *headshake*
That cannot be taken seriously.
"You speak of "outcome". What's that? It's basically the harvest of a work. Works are seed and the corresponding fruit is the "outcome" of that work. Now there are basically 2 sorts of seed (works) and likewise 2 sorts of fruit (outcome).
ReplyDeleteGood work = good seed
Good outcome = good fruit
Bad work = bad seed
Bad outcome = bad fruit"
So you're claiming that fruit refers to the outcome of our works, not to the works themselves?
Why? Why do you think "works"==seed/tree in those parables? Why do you claim that tree==works as opposed to tree==person & fruit==works (i.e. what the person produces directly)?
Excuse me, but these words cannot be taken seriously. I ask you: Is there anything about God's will which he has not revealed? Have you ever read Eph 1,9? God's has made known the mystery of his will. A mystey made known is no mystery anymore.
ReplyDeletePardon me, but it takes some serious hermeneutical gymnastics to get an exhaustive revelation of God's will from Ephesians 1:9. In context, which you routinely ignore, the mystery is the gathering together of a single people. It's about election. You keep running all over the place to fill in the gaps in your biblical "arguments" (if you can even call them that). In Pauline discourse, the mystery God has revealed is the creation of the Church from both Jews and Gentiles, not an exhaustive revelation of His mind.
Scripture actually does, in fact say that God has not revealed some things..."The secret things belong to God, but the revealed belong to us and to our children..." Does that ring a bell?
Remember too that this tet a tet began when you decided to "critique" the Greater Good Defense while denying the Free Will Defense. Let's see your theodicy and let's see how it avoids "easy solutionism."
But...but, you see, Jude 8 says: "Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones." And Daniel 1:17 says: "Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams."
ReplyDeleteTherefore, Daniel relied on his dreams, defiled his flesh, rejected authority and blasphemed the glorious ones! This is why Joseph dreams of sheaves of wheat bowing down to him!!!
Wheat are Christians, and this is why Jesus says "For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect" (Mark 13:22). Yes, these dreams take out even the wheat!
This is why it is forbidden for any Christian to sleep, for Paul says: "So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night" (1 Thessalonians 5:6-7). Therefore, the warning about eating incorrectly: "That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep" (1 Corinthians 11:30).
Is it not obvious that if you sleep, you are not saved? Honestly, I don't want to be polemic or personal here but if you snooze, you lose. To deny this means you are worse than Hitler; indeed, you are a CALVINIST!!!
A Helmet said:
ReplyDelete"That's a rhetorical question whose actuality the author (Paul) is yet going to scrutinize in the following elaboration. Note, the diatriby style is prevalent in that epistle. Paul is leading a discussion. The reality of whether God actually makes vessels of destruction is utterly open. Only if you raise up a shutoff "No further reading recommended" can you make such a claim. No, you are a bit to hasty with that text!"
If it is utterly open then it is not a rhetorical question! Since you admit it is a rhetorical question, how can you then claim that it is an open question?
"Excuse me, but these words cannot be taken seriously. I ask you: Is there anything about God's will which he has not revealed?"
Deut 29:29
"Have you ever read Eph 1,9"
The text says he made known the mystery, not that he provided an exhaustive revelation of it. E.g., he placed the mystery before us so that we could contemplate it, not that he resolved it to our finite mind's satisfaction. God has revealed that which He intended to reveal. No more, no less.
"An inscrutable God doesn't save you, Neal! If you don't know God, he doesn't know you either!"
Inscrutable doesn't mean you can't know God. It means you can't have exhaustive knowledge of Him.
"I believe in all attributes of the christian God that christendom has historically hold to."
Maybe you should take some theology classes so you know what you are talking about when you talk about God's attributes.
"I don't understand how it makes God impotent an unworthy if I can know Him!?"
Nobody said that. But if you claim to have exhaustive knowledge of Him, you are worshipping an idol.