Evil

[Chalcedon]

I appreciate you posting all this. It may cause someone to want to re-examine their own doctrines and really look at what the Bible says.
Good work

thanks for admitting you align with the JW cult. Good work.

 

[Sethproton]

thanks for admitting you align with the JW cult. Good work.

I am sure i hold many truths in common with them, but I have never read their material

 

[His clay]

Hey everyone, I’m new here. I was looking in the forums last night trying to find this topic addressed and discussed with rationality and respect. Please forgive me if I missed it…
My husband and I are divided on Calvinism vs non Calvinism and the question of the origin of evil has come up.

please don’t comment with a thousand Bible verses, I am not interested in cut and paste answers, I really want someone’s biblical perspective and thoughts as to a perfect God who decrees all things but yet evils very existence. It seems to be a logical incoherency that a perfect God created evil. My husband gives the pat answer that it comes from our hearts but if God decrees all things, down to the smallest degree, how can it be? Did he decree evil?

if you believe that evil comes from our own hearts desire, does that not mean that God created something less than good?

for my understanding, Gods “sovereignty” isn’t challenged or impugned by gifting us the free will to serve him or not.

And if you say that we were given the capacity for evil but not for the choice to have faith, what would the point be?
I hope you can follow my thoughts and would love to hear different perspectives

Thank you, I look forward to reading both sides if anyone feels so inclined!

Before responding, I need to ask a few clarifying questions.

(1) You stated, "And if you say that we were given the capacity for evil but not for the choice to have faith, what would the point be?" I'm at a loss as to your meaning. What do you mean by "what would the point be?" I'm unsure what you are getting at.

I'll ask the same question from a different angle. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve "were given the capacity for evil," "but not . . . the choice for faith." What would be lost? Are you equating "the capacity for evil" with the ability to make a choice?

(2) What exactly brings you to ask the question? Is it your own personal hangups and inability to rationalize a Calvinistic decree with your understanding of free will? Has there been an actual passage of scripture that brings up the origin of evil? My questioning here is getting to this issue --> Are you allowing a philosophical question to govern the issue rather than scripture?

Finally, I get that you are seeking for other's thoughts, and my questions may not be what you want to hear. However, all questions (mine and yours) make certain assumptions, and asking questions of questions is sometimes a good practice at getting behind questions to the assumptions governing them. My first question is to better understand your point (clarifying question). My second question concerns what is generating your thought process (scripture or philosophical assumptions or the desire to rationalize)

Disclaimer: I consider myself a poor poster, for I often put my frying pan in too many fires, so I leave some discussions unfinished or neglected. Sometimes I get overly busy to continue a dialogue. If that doesn't put you off, then please feel free to respond to my post.

 

[ReverendRV]

Before responding, I need to ask a few clarifying questions.

(1) You stated, "And if you say that we were given the capacity for evil but not for the choice to have faith, what would the point be?" I'm at a loss as to your meaning. What do you mean by "what would the point be?" I'm unsure what you are getting at.

I'll ask the same question from a different angle. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve "were given the capacity for evil," "but not . . . the choice for faith." What would be lost? Are you equating "the capacity for evil" with the ability to make a choice?

(2) What exactly brings you to ask the question? Is it your own personal hangups and inability to rationalize a Calvinistic decree with your understanding of free will? Has there been an actual passage of scripture that brings up the origin of evil? My questioning here is getting to this issue --> Are you allowing a philosophical question to govern the issue rather than scripture?

Finally, I get that you are seeking for other's thoughts, and my questions may not be what you want to hear. However, all questions (mine and yours) make certain assumptions, and asking questions of questions is sometimes a good practice at getting behind questions to the assumptions governing them. My first question is to better understand your point (clarifying question). My second question concerns what is generating your thought process (scripture or philosophical assumptions or the desire to rationalize)

Disclaimer: I consider myself a poor poster, for I often put my frying pan in too many fires, so I leave some discussions unfinished or neglected. Sometimes I get overly busy to continue a dialogue. If that doesn't put you off, then please feel free to respond to my post.

You're the best Poster...

She was very active, but went on a weekend trip to talk about all this with her Calvinist husband. She has said very little since. I think we all would like for her to come back...

 

[Grayecxm]

Before responding, I need to ask a few clarifying questions.

(1) You stated, "And if you say that we were given the capacity for evil but not for the choice to have faith, what would the point be?" I'm at a loss as to your meaning. What do you mean by "what would the point be?" I'm unsure what you are getting at.

I'll ask the same question from a different angle. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve "were given the capacity for evil," "but not . . . the choice for faith." What would be lost? Are you equating "the capacity for evil" with the ability to make a choice?

(2) What exactly brings you to ask the question? Is it your own personal hangups and inability to rationalize a Calvinistic decree with your understanding of free will? Has there been an actual passage of scripture that brings up the origin of evil? My questioning here is getting to this issue --> Are you allowing a philosophical question to govern the issue rather than scripture?

I guess that was a poorly worded question on my part- I think my main idea here was sin and reconciling sin with the Calvinist idea of Gods decrees and the necessary results of that being God “willing” everything including sin.
What I meant by the capacity for evil but not the choice for faith is not to equate them but rather to understand through a Calvinist view how exactly that idea gets worked out- example: God gave us the capacity for evil and for sin and indeed decrees that they will happen and then that they will work together for his good but when it comes to his creation “faithing”, if you will, he draws the line?
A good and perfect God could have created a good and perfect world. Why does sin exist at all when he decrees everything… just questions I had... I did learn that questioning Calvinism is not for the faint of heart

Finally, I get that you are seeking for other's thoughts, and my questions may not be what you want to hear. However, all questions (mine and yours) make certain assumptions, and asking questions of questions is sometimes a good practice at getting behind questions to the assumptions governing them. My first question is to better understand your point (clarifying question). My second question concerns what is generating your thought process (scripture or philosophical assumptions or the desire to rationalize)

Disclaimer: I consider myself a poor poster, for I often put my frying pan in too many fires, so I leave some discussions unfinished or neglected. Sometimes I get overly busy to continue a dialogue. If that doesn't put you off, then please feel free to respond to my post.

I’m sure I’m a pretty poor poster too so no worries!
There’s a lot of reasons I was asking- yes, I do have a hard time reconciling these ideas to scripture and yes, I also don’t see them rationally explained but that’s also my opinion and seeking to understand became a bit of a war here which was not my intent so I backed off. I’m not interested in fighting at all- just really did have some questions that I felt like asking my husband would cause more anger than worth because these questions naturally elicit passionate responses-
Anyway, this thread went in all kinds of directions and I felt wasn’t probably the best of me to even ask- I haven’t been on a forum before and I’ve learned a lot-

 

[ReverendRV]

I guess that was a poorly worded question on my part- I think my main idea here was sin and reconciling sin with the Calvinist idea of Gods decrees and the necessary results of that being God “willing” everything including sin.
What I meant by the capacity for evil but not the choice for faith is not to equate them but rather to understand through a Calvinist view how exactly that idea gets worked out- example: God gave us the capacity for evil and for sin and indeed decrees that they will happen and then that they will work together for his good but when it comes to his creation “faithing”, if you will, he draws the line?
A good and perfect God could have created a good and perfect world. Why does sin exist at all when he decrees everything… just questions I had... I did learn that questioning Calvinism is not for the faint of heart




I’m sure I’m a pretty poor poster too so no worries!
There’s a lot of reasons I was asking- yes, I do have a hard time reconciling these ideas to scripture and yes, I also don’t see them rationally explained but that’s also my opinion and seeking to understand became a bit of a war here which was not my intent so I backed off. I’m not interested in fighting at all- just really did have some questions that I felt like asking my husband would cause more anger than worth because these questions naturally elicit passionate responses-
Anyway, this thread went in all kinds of directions and I felt wasn’t probably the best of me to even ask- I haven’t been on a forum before and I’ve learned a lot-

His Clay is the best person here you can talk about it with...

 

[Theo1689]

What you are remembering is Civic's version. And no matter how many times I tell you what i really believe, you prefer his version.
That baffles me

So let me get this straight... You claim we have to accept your explicit explanation over what you've said in the past.

But you turn around and demand the right to make false claims about what nobody has actually posted, while IGNORING what we "explicitly explain"?

Why the double standard, Seth?

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Honestly, I have been engaging with you because of the absurdity of your posts, just for amusement, but i have no idea about what the context was for the statement you are quoting and claiming it is my statement.
Still, I just answered the issue in my statement: some Calvinist claim the Greek word translated foreknow, actually means forelove.
Possibly that was what I was referring to? But if you point me back to the thread and post # I will re-read and see what i can remember

Red bolding mine.

There is nothing absurd about asking a Christian to show the evidence of their claims. You cannot do it, and you won't do it because the likelihood that a Calvinists ever said such a thing is almost nil.

You have made these kinds of accusations many many times and I have saved almost all of them. We all make mistakes, but our loving God helps us to rightly divide the scriptures. You aren't doing that. You don't seem to be willing to learn HOW to interpret scripture. Until you do, you'll keep making making these wrong accusations.

Your attempt to obfuscate to substitute foreloved instead of foreknowledge is the very definition of prevarication. It's useful for the lurkers to see that you were wrong on Calvinists denying foreknowledge. Now, let them and me see where anyone exchanged the words in this way.

You should stop before you lose all credibility.

You have also broken at least three rules. I know there are a lot of them, but they aren't hard to follow and when we signed up we agreed to follow them.

https://carm.org/uncategorized/carm-discussion-rules/

 

[Beloved Daughter]

@Sethproton your bait and switch tactics do not work and neither does your constant moving of the goal posts when you have been refuted. Many posters see you do this on a regular basis on this forum.

Amen civic. Our relationship with Jesus Christ convicts us to speak to others with sincerity, honesty and generosity. A Christian never ducks and runs and prevaricates.

God Bless Dear Brother.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

This last point is specious. It has the appearance of making sense but does not.
soma does mean body and is a word used to describe any physical thing which has a body.
In order to discuss a spiritual body, it is a logical necessity to use the word "body" to do it
But to assume that a spiritual body is a physical body because of the word "soma" is ignorant

Further evidence that you are not able to rightly divide the Word of God.

Learn first, then post. https://www.biblehub.com/greek/4983.htm

The Bible was translated from the Greek. Since you don't know what it means, let alone its definition, the only 'ignorance' going on is your own.

Learn first, then post.

Learn first, then post.

Learn first, then post.

Learn first, then post.

 

[Sethproton]

So let me get this straight... You claim we have to accept your explicit explanation over what you've said in the past.

But you turn around and demand the right to make false claims about what nobody has actually posted, while IGNORING what we "explicitly explain"?

Why the double standard, Seth?

Not sure how this relates to what i said, that you would rather believe Civic's doctored version of what i said, instead of my own explanation of what I said

 

[Sethproton]

Further evidence that you are not able to rightly divide the Word of God.

Learn first, then post. https://www.biblehub.com/greek/4983.htm

The Bible was translated from the Greek. Since you don't know what it means, let alone its definition, the only 'ignorance' going on is your own.

Learn first, then post.

Learn first, then post.

Learn first, then post.

Learn first, then post.

As long as you want to make your post about me instead of what i said, the discussion is pointless

 

[Chalcedon]

As long as you want to make your post about me instead of what i said, the discussion is pointless

It’s always about what you say. A person cannot separate oneself from his words.

Jesus stated, “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.”

hope this helps !!!

 

[Sethproton]

It’s always about what you say. A person cannot separate oneself from his words.

Jesus stated, “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.”

hope this helps !!!

You are hilarious. No matter what nonsense you post, when you are called on it, you will figure a way to try and make it sound plausible

 

[Chalcedon]

You are hilarious. No matter what nonsense you post, when you are called on it, you will figure a way to try and make it sound plausible

You missed the spirit that’s behind your words. Listen to Jesus as He gets right down to the heart of the matter with your posts. But of course you just ignored sconce again and ran away from the passage on the subject we were discussing. My response was very fitting considering the title of this thread.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Theo1689]

Not sure how this relates to what i said, that you would rather believe Civic's doctored version of what i said, instead of my own explanation of what I said

The same reason you think people should believe YOUR "doctored version" of what Calvinists allegedly said 10 years ago in posts you cannot quote.

Basically, you have NO basis for claiming others have misrepresented you (especially when we can see your posts), when YOU regularly misrepresent Calvinists.

It's called a "double standard."

 

[Theo1689]

As long as you want to make your post about me instead of what i said, the discussion is pointless

So you can make posts about Calvinists, but we can't make posts about you?
More double standards, Seth?

 

[Theo1689]

You are hilarious. No matter what nonsense you post, when you are called on it, you will figure a way to try and make it sound plausible

You whine about others making posts about you, but her you are making posts about civic?
Why the double standard, Seth?

 

[Chalcedon]

The same reason you think people should believe YOUR "doctored version" of what Calvinists allegedly said 10 years ago in posts you cannot quote.

Basically, you have NO basis for claiming others have misrepresented you (especially when we can see your posts), when YOU regularly misrepresent Calvinists.

It's called a "double standard."

And he also misrepresents himself quite often and in such cases I remind him by quoting his own words on this forum and the old one where I have several of his aberrant teachings saved for times like this.

 

[Sethproton]

The same reason you think people should believe YOUR "doctored version" of what Calvinists allegedly said 10 years ago in posts you cannot quote.

Basically, you have NO basis for claiming others have misrepresented you (especially when we can see your posts), when YOU regularly misrepresent Calvinists.

It's called a "double standard."

Interesting confession on your part,