Dave123

Jason I used a similar quote earlier in this thread. "God is very often said to blind and harden the reprobate . . .. There are two methods in which God may so act. [1] When his light is taken away, nothing remains but blindness and darkness: when his Spirit is taken away, our hearts become hard as stones: when his guidance is withdrawn, we immediately turn from the right path: and hence he is properly said to incline, harden, and blind those whom he deprives of the faculty of seeing, obeying, and rightly executing. The second method . . . is when executing his judgements by Satan as the minister of his anger, God both directs men's counsels, and excites their wills, and regulates their efforts as he pleases. Institutes. (II.4.3) Lets try this a different way. Bear with me. I know we can get very technical with this analogy, but take in its most simplest understanding. When I turn on a light in a room, I created that light. The light overpowered the darkness. That's what I would define as effectual cause. Now, when I turn off that light, the room becomes dark. Darkness was not created, it did not overcome the light. The light was removed and darkness is what was left. Would it be right to say that I effectually caused that darkness? I don't believe so. Also, I did not create darkness for the purpose of overtaking the light. I simply removed the light. If we carry this analogy over to good vs. evil. Evil is not a created thing meant to overtake the light. Evil is the absence of good. God's justice did not demand that evil be created to overtake good, but it did demand that the light be removed. Within God's eternal decree, there was a purpose for darkness. God did use it, He decreed it. He ordained it, etc . He's sovereign over it, He just didn't effectually cause it. He can't without ceasing to be God. This is what I believe that Calvin means in both quotes. And this is where I believe that you and I differ. I believe that God can be sovereign over something that He doesn't effectually cause. He can decree it etc., etc, right down the line. There seems to be the idea with you, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that if God is sovereign over it, then he had to effectually cause it. I agree that when the light was turned off, God knew and planned on the darkness being there, and used it, etc. He just didn't effectuall cause it. Dave

Legoman I went out of my way to make sure that nobody misunderstood me in that regard. First paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Nobody *ascended* to heaven except the Son of God. Big difference. As for the rest, your answers are in my previous posts. Dave

Hey J I'm on my way out. I just seen your name at the bottom of the page Good night Dave

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. It does not say "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good for the purpose that God created it. This does not conflict with Prov. 16:4. Be careful not to read into that passage more than what is being said. Obviously, God had a purpose in creating men which He knew would be evil. Knowing this, He created them with that purpose in mind. This does not mean that God created evil men for His purpose. See the difference? In other words, the "purpose" of that passage speaks of that persons whole life, and is not restricted to the time of that persons creation, or better, does not imply that God inserted evil into them upon their creation. That's not what it says. NIV 4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends

legoman When God "raises up evil". We see this differently. Think the implication through. Did God take a "good" people, insert evil, then direct them towards Israel? This is what your position assumes. Or, did God take an already evil people, and simply direct them towards Israel? The second is not a creating of evil per say, but a providentially governing of it. God did not insert evil into their hearts, He simply left them to themselves. He ordained it. He used it. He decreed it. Again, the question is not "could they have sinned?" The point being missed in regards to the 'sinful nature' is that the one who is enslaved by it cannot do good because he is seperated from God, the Source of all that is good. In effect, you are claiming, by saying that Adam and Eve had a sinful nature before the fall, that they were already seperated from God and could not do good. Rememebr, God said that everything that He created was "good", including Adam and Eve. This does not mean that they could not sin, it simply meant that they did not yet sin, because accountability came with the knowledge of good and evil. The one thing that God commanded them not to do was the one thing that would make them accountable. Ezekiel 28:11 Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 12

Hi legoman. I'm still short on time but I do have a question that may save us some time in our discussion. Are you familiar with the infralapsarianism (sublapsarianism) vs. supralapsarianism debate? I don't ask this to debate it with you, but only because the debate itself drives one to consider the first "cause" when it come to evil. Everything after Adam and Eve is justice. Adam and Eve, in my mind, if there was a libertarian free will, they would qualify. I really don't know. I do know that they were not enslaved to a sinful nature before the fall. So, it's not that they couldn't choose evil, but more so, before the fall, that they could choose good. We can only look to scripture to try to pc. it together. As I stated in the past, everything that God created, He created good. That should tell us something there. Along with other things that have been posted earier in this thread. I won't get into it all again. In short, I believe that the burdon of proof would fall on your shoulders to prove that God caused Satan to rebel, likewise, where we are concerned, that God caused Adam to fall. I don't believe scripture goes that far, therefore I believe it would be innappropriate to claim it as Biblical fact. Also, the circumstancial evidence, if you want to call it that, some of which I posted earlier, tells me that God cannot be the cause of evil. Fraught I borrowed that question from this pc. http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02...w_hendryx_1.php The idea was to get a fresh perspective. People define freedom, or free will in so many different ways these days that it's important that we all understand what we mean when we use that term. Anyways, read the pc., it's short. I think that Hendryx's question cuts through some of the misunderstandings behind the term when it is used.

Hi legoman. I'm short on time today. Check out my thread called *"bare Permission" is unbiblical*. Maybe that will help you to understand where I'm coming from. Fraught, a question for you if you don't mind. I need to try to understand exactly what you are saying for me to respond correctly. When you speak of 'man's free will', what are you claiming man's will is free from? From sin? God's sovereinty? Dave

Thanks for the reply, legoman Probably the best reponse that I could give to you would be the one that you were replying to from me. Again, a muddying of the waters. This is a direct result of our seperation from God that we inherited from Adam. This is a seperation that is not only from God, but from the only source of good. This is also an act of judgement. This is why it is said "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5). Until God moves, man is left to himself. Without God, the source of all good, (John 15:5, 1 Corinthians 4:7, Isaiah 64:6) man can only produce evil. This is the foundation for the doctrine known as total depravity, or better, total inability. God must move first (John 6:44). Calvin touched on this in the quote I gave from my previous post. This is speaking of Gods providence. I agree that He governs all things. This is very different from saying that He effectually caused them. "Worketh all" would fall into the catagory of what you would call "does use [all]". Dave

Alright, teach. Hey I thought I'd throw this in since it's fresh on my mind. "God is very often said to blind and harden the reprobate . . .. There are two methods in which God may so act. [1] When his light is taken away, nothing remains but blindness and darkness: when his Spirit is taken away, our hearts become hard as stones: when his guidance is withdrawn, we immediately turn from the right path: and hence he is properly said to incline, harden, and blind those whom he deprives of the faculty of seeing, obeying, and rightly executing. The second method . . . is when executing his judgements by Satan as the minister of his anger, God both directs men's counsels, and excites their wills, and regulates their efforts as he pleases. Institutes. (II.4.3)

Hi legoman Again, we need to be careful to look at the context of many of the scriptures that you posted. Most are, as was pointed out, acts of judgement. Do you see the difference between the next two quotes? Your quote from the article I posted: Your response: The first quote which I used speaks of effectual cause only. But the second, your responce in critiquing the first adds "sends forth" and "uses". This is a muddying of the waters, wouldn't you agree? We are speaking strictly of the cause, or source of evil. There is quite a big difference between God providentially governing everything, including evil, from an eternal decree, being sovereign over it, and saying that all evil is caused, as in sourced in God. If you will kindly post the scripture that you believe says that God is the cause, meaning the source of evil, then we will deal with those. Something for you to consider too. "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." Thanks Dave

I wanted to add this from the link provided in my previous post. Just a pc. of it that touched on some of the discussion here. It's still worth your time to read the whole thing. I also would like to pose the questions I asked in my last thread again if anyone is still interested. Is it safe (biblical) to say that God is the only source of good? Would it then be correct to say that evil is not a created thing, per say, but simply the absence of God, or better, the absence of Good? Dave

Good verses, and points made by all. I'll try to reply to all of it, if not now, then when time allows. I'm actually heading somewhere with this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a side note, something a little off topic but still important to remember for future reference. Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19; Matthew 19:17 So Jesus said to him,

What does the Bible tell us?

You're welcome kross. I try. Dave