“This means, from beginning to end, evil is involved as a necessary opposite to God, where each other's character is measured and definable in terms of the other. This is a classical unbiblical dualism akin to what you are charging arminianism to entail. In calvinism, evil is eternally necessary to realize God's innate properties! Therefore, the dualism charge you raise against arminianism cuts both ways.”
In supralapsarianism, evil is not necessary to “realize” God’s attributes. Rather, it’s (conditionally) necessary to reveal God’s attributes.
And that’s quite different than treating good and evil as eternal, autonomous principles.
In Calvinism, fallen agents are creatures, not gods. Evil has no subsistence apart from God’s will. That’s very different from Manichean/Zoroastrian dualism.
In dualism, evil doesn’t exist for a good reason. And it has a subsistence independent of the good.
There is, I’d add, a fundamentally difference between saying that God eternally willed something to be, and saying that something eternally coexisted with God.
Hence, Kröger’s attempted parallel is shot full of equivocations.
But one of the problems with Arminianism is that it does treat evil as though it were an autonomous force. Arminians want to have it both ways. Say that God is still in control, yet ascribe autonomy to fallen agents. Say that god allows evil without willing evil.
“In calvinism, good cannot exist without evil!”
False. In Calvinism, good can exist without evil. Both finite (creaturely) goods and infinite (divine) goods can exist without evil.
What cannot exist without evil are certain second-order goods.
“No, these two are completely different things. In christianity God can exist without a creation, but calvinism's greater good defense makes evil a necessity.”
A conditional necessity. God is a liberty to create a world with or without second-order goods. And he’s at liberty to create no world at all.
“That's right and without sin there'd be no grounds for mercy.”
True. So what?
“Right, but God's creation was very good. He could have renounced creation and stayed alone. Then he would not be a creator. But he would still be fully God.”
Which is equally the case in Calvinism.
“According to the Greater Good Defense, mercy and wrath in response to evil are ultimately better than no evil.”
True. So what?
Mind you, I don’t think a Reformed theodicy even requires a greater good defense.
It’s sufficient to say that a world which is fallen and redeemed exemplifies certain incommensurable goods. Goods which remain unexemplified in a sinless world.
“Wouldn't it be better if there were no evil to begin with?”
If a world without evil is a better world, then why did God create a world with evil? If there are no compensatory benefits to redemption (which presupposes sin), then why did God allow it?
“And the bible nowhere suggests such a thing. In fact, it doesn't make much sense in light of the biblical view of sin and evil which portrays the culpability of evil. Nowhere does the bible suggest a good outcome of evil.”
I’ve already corrected Kröger on that demonstrably false statement. So why is he repeating the same discredited claim?
“If evil served a greater good, it would be good!--simple.”
Simple-minded, you mean. To reiterate an illustration I used with another commenter: Suppose my younger brother and I may not get along very well until a traffic accident leaves him in a wheelchair. That brings us closer together. His disability is not intrinsically good. But it’s instrumentally good.
“So if God's glorious mercy and justice are in any way real, then their basis, that is, human guilt must likewise be real. But on what basis is there a real culpability of man??! You may say there is no real guilt of man, however then there cannot be a real display of God's mercy and wrath.”
A non sequitur. God’s good intentions in decreeing the Fall are distinguishable from the evil intentions of fallen creatures.
“You cannot think of mercy without thinking of evil.”
And how is that an objection to Calvinism? In our world, we have mercy and evil. That’s the actual state of affairs.
“Yet the greater good defense puts the cart before the horse. There's sin in order to respond to it, either mercifully or angry.”
Which confuses ontology with teleology.
“The mere concept of evil isn't even part of God.”
So God has no concept of evil? God is ignorant of evil?
“By reading a helmet's book (the key) on the theodicy problem (the lock), the many, many obstacles and stumbling stones (the pins) being encountered during that quest, are moved in various ways. But when you reach the end of the book, all the questions and problems regarding theodicy will have fallen into their places and been satisfiably answered--you can unlock and open the door!”
I take it that Kröger’s forthcoming book is the lost book of the Bible. We can’t get the answers we need from Scripture. We need to add his book to the canon. A new prophet has arisen!
"If a world without evil is a better world, then why did God create a world with evil?"
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me to see so many non-Calvinists struggle with the fact that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then sin exists for a reason. What is really at issue is whether sin is purposed for the greater good of "free will" or because, as Daniel Fuller wrote, it "would be impossible for [the elect] to share with God the delight he has in his mercy unless they saw clearly the awfulness of the almighty wrath from which his mercy delivers them."
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteDid you notice the response to your arminianism=manichaeism nonsense at www.evangelicalarminians.org?
I mean, this comparison cannot be taken seriously, and it's a shame that it becomes apparent that this post of yours was not satire. How low is this going to get?
Arminians want to have it both ways. Say that God is still in control, yet ascribe autonomy to fallen agents.
Calvinists want to have it both ways, too. Say that God is in control, yet ascribe responsibility to fallen agents.
[Arminians]Say that god allows evil without willing evil.
Calvinists also say that god allows evil without willing evil. They even say god predestines evil without willing evil!
“That's right and without sin there'd be no grounds for mercy.”
True. So what?
So what? I'll tell you. If one adopts the position that the greater good is the exertion of mercy and the greater good is the reason for the existence of sin, then mercy is the reason for sin. Yet you wouldn't accept that conclusion, would you?
“According to the Greater Good Defense, mercy and wrath in response to evil are ultimately better than no evil.”
True. So what?
So what? I'll tell you. For mercy and wrath to be real, the underlying culpability must be real in the first place. What then, is the basis for human culpability? If you hold that all thoughts/desires are predestined by God and humans are culpable for these thoughts by sheer definition, then mercy/justice are not genuine either. Hence, the greater good is likewise a fake.
So you must answer why anyone is guilty.
I posed the question:
“Wouldn't it be better if there were no evil to begin with?”
This is the starting question that prompts the theodicy problem to begin with, doesn't it?
But you answered:
If a world without evil is a better world, then why did God create a world with evil? If there are no compensatory benefits to redemption (which presupposes sin), then why did God allow it?
Well, theodicy is about providing and answer to that question, yet you are just repeating the question in different words here. However, these questions are the real obstacles, not the answers. In a similar way, the greater good defense answers nothing.
Suppose my younger brother and I may not get along very well until a traffic accident leaves him in a wheelchair. That brings us closer together. His disability is not intrinsically good. But it’s instrumentally good.
If you don't get along with your brother, why is that in the first place? Isn't that bad also? If your relationship with your brother was good from the beginning, there'd be no need for an accident and this reasoning would be meaningless. So why a bad relationship anyway?
God’s good intentions in decreeing the Fall are distinguishable from the evil intentions of fallen creatures.
The creatures' intentions are part of the predestination. Can any man think thoughts that have never been thought before? Can man have ex nihilo thoughts? According to Calivnism, even man's thoughts are traceable back to God's decree and so are his desires and intentions.
So where is the basis for genuine culpability? Or is your god just playing puppet theatre?
Yet the greater good defense puts the cart before the horse. There's sin in order to respond to it, either mercifully or angry.”
Which confuses ontology with teleology.
So what? It still demonstrates the utter nonsense of reformed theodicy.
So God has no concept of evil? God is ignorant of evil?
The holy One doesn't have evil thoughts. He doesn't ponder evil ideas. Evil doesn't originate with God, who is holy.
-a helmet
Part of me was fascinated with A Helmet, but I believe his true Gnostic colors have come forth.
ReplyDeleteOnly by reading his book, the key, can one understand. The sheer arrogance of that reeks of Gnosticism.
A Helmet you need to repent and believe the revealed will of God in Holy Scripture. Trying to peddle your man made ideas will get you nowhere, nor will it help the lost who need to hear the Gospel.
The book you are writing is not “the key”; all you need to know and believe has already been revealed and written down in Scripture.
Grace & Peace
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteUh, would you tell me where the greater good defense is in the bible?
If I were you I would start at Genesis 1:1 and go all the way to Revelations 22:21.
ReplyDeleteYou will find the answer throughout your reading. Abondon this gnostic view and rely on Him alone.
Forgive my attempt at being cute, but I could just as easily say
By reading Holy Scripture (the key) on the theodicy problem (the lock), the many, many obstacles and stumbling stones (the pins) being encountered during that quest, are moved in various ways. But when you reach the end of the book, all the questions and problems regarding theodicy will have fallen into their places and been satisfiably answered – you can unlock and open the door!
I am on my way out of town and will not be able to respond for at least a week, but I plead with you to repent of your arrogance and rely on the true key for your answers.
Grace & Peace
"What cannot exist without evil are certain second-order goods"
ReplyDeleteWe've all read of heroic stories where some person runs into a burning building to rescue a family member or even some stranger. Without the burning building, there perhaps would have been no opportunity to display this level of degree of self-sacrifice. If this is what you mean by "second order good", then yes, what you stated is true. A certain kind of "evil" has to exist for this good to be made known.
I guess the question is whether it would be "better" to exist in a world where buildings didn't catch fire.
I'm not sure how one goes about answering that. Doesn't one have to weigh various goods and outcomes, and know what the alternates are to be able to truthfully answer that?
A HELMET SAID:
ReplyDelete“Calvinists want to have it both ways, too. Say that God is in control, yet ascribe responsibility to fallen agents.”
And we’ve argued for that distinction. You offer no counterargument. You simply assert that the two are incompatible.
“Calvinists also say that god allows evil without willing evil. They even say god predestines evil without willing evil!”
Where do you even come up with this stuff? Certainly God willed it. But he didn’t will it for its own sake.
“So what? I'll tell you. If one adopts the position that the greater good is the exertion of mercy and the greater good is the reason for the existence of sin, then mercy is the reason for sin. Yet you wouldn't accept that conclusion, would you?”
Why wouldn’t I accept that conclusion?
“So what? I'll tell you. For mercy and wrath to be real, the underlying culpability must be real in the first place. What then, is the basis for human culpability? If you hold that all thoughts/desires are predestined by God and humans are culpable for these thoughts by sheer definition, then mercy/justice are not genuine either. Hence, the greater good is likewise a fake. So you must answer why anyone is guilty.”
I’ll answer if and when you come up with an actual argument rather than a tendentious assertion.
“Well, theodicy is about providing and answer to that question, yet you are just repeating the question in different words here. However, these questions are the real obstacles, not the answers.”
I’m repeating the question because the question is directed at you. I’ve given my own answer on multiple occasions.
“If you don't get along with your brother, why is that in the first place? Isn't that bad also?”
Which is irrelevant to whether a bad event like a crippling accident can have a silver lining.
“If your relationship with your brother was good from the beginning, there'd be no need for an accident and this reasoning would be meaningless. So why a bad relationship anyway?”
Now you’re changing the subject. This was your original statement:
““If evil served a greater good, it would be good!--simple.”
That’s what I was responding to. You’re reply does nothing to refute my response.
The fact that you have to change the subject is a backdoor admission that you have no counterargument-even though my response was targeting something you said.
“The creatures' intentions are part of the predestination.”
The creature has a mode of subsistence which is objective to God. Ontologically speaking, the creature’s thoughts are not identical with God’s thoughts.
“Can any man think thoughts that have never been thought before? Can man have ex nihilo thoughts?”
Are you claiming that man has ex nihilo thoughts? In that case, God is ignorant of man’s thoughts until they transpire. Is that your position?
“[Kröger] According to Calivnism, even man's thoughts are traceable back to God's decree and so are his desires and intentions. So where is the basis for genuine culpability? Or is your god just playing puppet theatre?”
ReplyDeleteA metaphor is not an argument. Where’s your argument?
“So what? It still demonstrates the utter nonsense of reformed theodicy.”
You talk about “putting the cart before the horse,” yet you’re unable to distinguish between a teleological order and an ontological order.
Here’s a teleological order. I want to go see a movie. That’s the goal. To get there I have to take a certain route. And before that I have to get into my car.
In terms of teleology, I start with the goal, and work back from there. The goal is the starting point.
The teleological order is:
Movie theater>route>garage
Here’s the ontological order. I have to get into my car before I can drive to the movie theater, and I have to drive to the movie theater before I can see the movie. The ontological order is the reverse of the teleological order.
The ontological order is:
Garage>route>movie theater
“The holy One doesn't have evil thoughts. He doesn't ponder evil ideas.”
That’s equivocal. It would mean either of two things:
i) God doesn’t have thoughts which are, themselves, evil.
ii) God doesn’t think about evil things
Which do you mean? If you mean (ii), then God is ignorant of what happens in a fallen world. In that event, God didn’t send his Son to die on the cross since, to do so, God would have to be aware of the sins which his Son came to atone.
“Uh, would you tell me where the greater good defense is in the bible?”
We’ve already supplied examples which you ignore.
But let’s take a different case. Consider the genealogies of Jesus. Each family tree contains sinful forebears. Every link in the chain leading up to Jesus is sinful. Yet the outcome is supremely good: God Incarnate!
The evil ancestors were a means to the greater good of the Messianic successor.
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteNo! Please acknowledge that the greater good defense is plainly and simply not between Genesis 1,1 and Rev. 22,21 as an explanation of the origin of sin. It just isn't there. I admit that many other man-made attempts aren't found there either. Seriously, you won't be able to show your theory of the why and whence of sin in the scriptures. The greater good defense is by man, not by God!
Of course, everyone can get arrogant, but this doesn't justify your theology. I don't lay emphasis on myself, a helmet, but was explaining why I couldn't give a sketch or summary of the content of the book I'm writing.
I doubt you read the post on my blog that I wrote in response to the discussions here. So I'll explain it again in short.
Suppose you stand before a locked door that needs a long password to open.
Imagine this was the password.
_trig&7_7behdorf$3_0_
If you provide a "summary" or a "rough description" of this password, then it won't help anyone to open the door a small gap. Half the password doesn't help to twist the door knob halfway. It doesn't help at all.
You need the entire password, each character in its order, no more, no less. That's what I explained, why I won't and can't "throw you bone".
What this has to do with gnostics is completely beyond me. Is there any biblical substantiation of your theodicy? Hardly.
Greetings
-a helmet
a helmet,
ReplyDeleteNo! Please acknowledge that the Kehrhelm Kröger defense is plainly and simply not between Genesis 1,1 and Rev. 22,21 as an explanation of the origin of sin. It just isn't there. I admit that many other man-made attempts aren't found there either. Seriously, you won't be able to show your theory of the why and whence of sin in the scriptures. The Kehrhelm Kröger defense is by man, not by God!
Greetings
-a patrick
Hello Steve Hays,
ReplyDeletea helmet:So where is the basis for genuine culpability?
Steve:A metaphor is not an argument. Where’s your argument?
The argument is, that you cannot provide a plausible basis for culpability. That's a tough argument, don't you think?
The ontological/teleological order distinction doesn't make the greater good defense any more plausible according to which sin exists because it servces a greater good. If this greater good is mercy (and justice), then mercy is the ultimate reason for sin's existence. The distinction you make doesn't change that. But WHY is man culpable to begin with? THAT's the real question of the problem of sin.
If you mean (ii), then God is ignorant of what happens in a fallen world. In that event, God didn’t send his Son to die on the cross since, to do so, God would have to be aware of the sins which his Son came to atone.
These issues are treated in my book. Easysolutionism doens't help.
a helmet:“Uh, would you tell me where the greater good defense is in the bible?”
Steve:We’ve already supplied examples which you ignore.
I don't think you can point to a place in the bible where a treatise on the origin of sin is provided, can you? (Note, Genesis 3,1 doesn't answer why there is sin anyway, neither do Isahiah 14 and Ezechiel 28.)
I find the genealogy example somewhat misfitting. Jesus doesn't originate from Joseph and hence, doesn't orginate from this whole ancestry. He was clearly sent into the world, having been born of God directly. At least this example doesn't serve as proof that evil comes out of good in the sense that reformed theodicy wants us to think.
The evil ancestors were a means to the greater good of the Messianic successor.
Okay, but why was there a need for a Messiah anyway? Without evil there wouldn't have been a need for a savior. This resembles your previous example of the brother hit by an accident. Note, the question of sin is basically a question of its origin. Why and whence evil anyway? That's the real issue.
-Kehrhelm "a helmet" Kröger
a helmet said...
ReplyDelete“The argument is, that you cannot provide a plausible basis for culpability. That's a tough argument, don't you think?”
That’s an assertion, not an argument. Provide an argument.
“But WHY is man culpable to begin with? THAT's the real question of the problem of sin.”
Unless and until you turn your question into an argument, there’s nothing here that merits a response from me.
“Easysolutionism doens't help.”
Using buzzwords like “easysolutionism” as substitutes for arguments is a classic example of easysolutionism.
Other examples of easysolutionism include substituting questions and assertions for arguments.
“I don't think you can point to a place in the bible where a treatise on the origin of sin is provided, can you?”
Relevance?
“I find the genealogy example somewhat misfitting. Jesus doesn't originate from Joseph and hence, doesn't orginate from this whole ancestry.”
Irrelevant. The question, as you posed it, is whether good can come from evil means. Mary’s genealogy consisted of sinners. Yet that genealogy was a precondition of the Incarnation–which is good.
“Okay, but why was there a need for a Messiah anyway? Without evil there wouldn't have been a need for a savior. This resembles your previous example of the brother hit by an accident. Note, the question of sin is basically a question of its origin. Why and whence evil anyway? That's the real issue.”
If that’s the real issue, then you need to drop the bait-and-switch tactic whereby your opening move is to claim that good can’t come out of event, then when we cite counterexamples, you suddenly ditch your original objection and switch to a different issue.