Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:Craig, I think is using molinsim to look into what comes first, and from what I read, I think his view is that they act together - you can’t have one without the other: You can’t predestine without foreknowing nor can you foreknow without predestining… The use of the term Middle Knowledge helps explore how this is possible, which leaves the integrity of God intact and helps gain a glimpse of the mystery.

B.W., I think it is fair to say that Craig assumes the argument as a solution to a problem of his (and others’) own making. His premises and conclusion remain unproven. This is the whole problem. What is liberty? And how is it interacted with?
　
In decreeing, God necessarily decrees all that will ever come to pass. Logically, God’s foreknowledge of x presupposes the necessity of x. If x will occur, then it is not the case that x might or might not occur. If God’s foreknowledge of x is not necessary, then it is contingent. No event can be foreknown unless it has by some physical or mental act been predetermined. What determines the certainty of future events is either the foreordination of the Father or some obscure act of fate. God is not a God of fate. If God had not foreordained the course of events but waited until some undetermined condition was or was not met, His decrees would be neither eternal nor immutable. So foreknowledge must presuppose foreordination.

The proposed would-counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, which are said to be found within every conceivable world scenario, cannot be grounded in God’s free knowledge of His creative decree - God’s creative decree is logically subsequent to, not prior to, the would-counterfactuals being proposed here. Did God spend time in eternity deliberating on such matters? Did He move from a state of not knowing to a state of knowing?

If God foreknew that Bill would do x tomorrow, then Bill cannot do anything other than x. Therefore, Bill cannot do anything other than x tomorrow. This doesn’t restrict Bill in making his choice, but it does bring to bare the claim that Bill could freely choose to do otherwise. The ability to choose as we want is a sufficient condition for moral accountability. Why is liberty so utterly insufficient that Molinists must make unsubstantiated assertions saying we must be able to choose contrary to what we will in order to be morally responsible agents?

You see, none of these propositions make any sense, either logically or, more importantly, in light of what we know about the sovereign God of scripture.

Ephesians 1:3-5

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.

2 Timothy 1:8-9

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God,

9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.

Ephesians 3:7-11

Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power.

8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,

9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,

10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord.

　

B. W. wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Let me take it a step further. God actually creates evil (Isaiah 45:7). No matter how you slice it, that's what the verse says with honest exegesis.

Actually the KJV translates a Hebrew word used in the text you cited as ‘evil’ when the word actually means ‘calamity’.

The word in Isaiah 45:7 is "ra", and the KJV translates it correctly. It means "evil", specifically moral evil. It will come as no surprise that many Christians are uncomfortable with this rendering, thus many translations substitute "calamity" in place of "evil", as though it really makes any difference (See also Amos 3:6). To settle the issue, all we need to do is see how the word is used in other scriptures. The word appears over 600 times in Scripture, and in all but a handful, it is directly translated as evil or wickedness.

The word is used throughout Genesis to describe the tree of knowledge of good and evil (not good and calamity). It describes the state of man before Noah's flood (Genesis 6:5). It describes the intent of Joseph's brothers toward Joseph when the sold him into slavery. (Genesis 50:20) It describes the evil of Israel in worshipping Baal (Judges 2:11). It describes David's adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12:11).

BW,

Do you want to repost my comments from the last time we had this exact discussion with PL, or do you?

Oh what the hey, I'll do it.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=165
God does use evil, and in a sense create evil. But this is not simply what a Calvinists professes. You are in fact claiming God to be the author of wickedness, sin and evil. Even when he condemns man for it. In the context of Isaiah, man is rebuked for doing evil over and over again. One of the first uses of this word in Isaiah is here, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20
What is the Calvinists doing here but calling evil good.

Lets look at another example. Isaiah 13:11 "And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible."
It is very obvious here, who is atrributed as the author of this evil. And it's not God.

Was the flood evil? In a sense yes. It was a judgement of evil. What about the judgments on Egypt? Evil? They certainly were evil in their effects. But again, these were righteous judgments of good. Not a manufacturing of sin, or the wickedness of men, or Satan.

Was God evil or good in these judgements? They were good, and He was good. They were not authored in that God is evil or wicked. They were the judgment of God upon evil.

Regarding 2nd Samuel. Yes, God did it. What did he do?
You left out verse 9
"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil (same Hebrew word) in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon."
Who did evil here? God? No.
And so God said, " will raise up evil against you from your own household. Where did the evil come from? From his own house. It already existed. And God raised it up for His purposes to judge.
And God can create evil, in the sense of calamity, distress, adversity, affliction, etc. regarding His judgments. Just as He exposed Absolom's evil.

This concept is best describes in Isaiah 31:2
Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.
Very clearly we see the distinction that God will bring evil upon evildoers. God is not the author of sin. But even he worketh good in all things for His glory. Again we see in Isaiah 47:11
"Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know."
Obviously this is not saying that sin shall come upon thee. Or God made some wickedness to put on you. No, this is judgment coming on what the evil person has sown.
It is even better understood in Isaiah 66:4
"I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not."

If God is the author of such evil, then why would man be condemned for running to it?
"Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths." Isaiah 59:7

All one must do is read in context how Isaiah uses this word, and one can come away without confusion, much less making God out to be Satan himself. This is just another in a long line of examples of proof-texting the scritpure to make it fit a theology, as opposed to one having their theology shaped by the Word. This all again boils down to the determined definition of soverignty by the Calvinists. In their attempt to defend it, they impune it. Because by their own definition of soveriegnty, they are forced to make a God a manufacturer of wickedness, depravity and sin (evil) to fit their framework.

Now, I would like to know, other than PL, which of you other Calvinists hold to PL's view on God being the author of evil? I'd like to know.

PL is certainly free to enter an leave this forum at his discretion, but you can definately see a pattern if one only look back through the history of his own posts. No question he is an intelligent guy. But, the pattern is clear. And once he has put up the same asked and answered arguments, he will likely vanish until the next Calvin topic arrises. And, hey, that's his perogitive. But one I think is worth noting. Just read through the other thread I linked if you doubt me.

jlay,

I don't believe that God is the author of sin (Scripture explicitly says that he is not). God does not force man to sin (He doesn't have to). Man has enough sin in himself to accomplish all the evil the God ordains. But God does create evil, he hardens hearts, he sends evil spirits, he sends lying spirits, he causes strong delusion, etc. Rather than rant or put my post up for a public vote (the second time you've done this), perhaps you would like to actually deal with what is written. How do you account for God creating evil?

jlay wrote:Just as He exposed Absolom's evil.

"I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun." (2 Samuel 12:12). You do realize that Absalom had not been born when God said this?

For the record, while I disagree vehemently with the position that God is the author of Evil, I respect that PL is willing to face the implications of his positions and own them rather than trying to engineer some sort of explanation that in the end fails and is unsatisfactory. If I were to accept the underlying premises of Calvinism, I'd be more likely to own PLs position than some of the others (not speaking of other people on this board, but rather other positions out there in general) that attempt to double speak themselves into holding self-contradicting positions. That said, I sympathize with the need and the efforts of others to do this because it's not an easy thing to make God the author of evil and then have to deal with the implications of that. This is why I say in other places, that most Calvinists that I know (and the one I was when I could be described as holding some of these positions) do not follow their beliefs through to their logical conclusion but either jump ship before it gets there or appeal to mystery when they've gone as far as they can go.

Canuckster1127 wrote:For the record, while I disagree vehemently with the position that God is the author of Evil, I respect that PL is willing to face the implications of his positions and own them rather than trying to engineer some sort of explanation that in the end fails and is unsatisfactory. If I were to accept the underlying premises of Calvinism, I'd be more likely to own PLs position than some of the others (not speaking of other people on this board, but rather other positions out there in general) that attempt to double speak themselves into holding self-contradicting positions. That said, I sympathize with the need and the efforts of others to do this because it's not an easy thing to make God the author of evil and then have to deal with the implications of that. This is why I say in other places, that most Calvinists that I know (and the one I was when I could be described as holding some of these positions) do not follow their beliefs through to their logical conclusion but either jump ship before it gets there or appeal to mystery when they've gone as far as they can go.

Calvinists aren't immune to dodging hard passages of Scripture. (My own pastor wants to deny double predestination. I have yet to hear a rational explanation of how that works.)

puritan lad wrote:If I have taken the verse out of context, you will have to show this.

First, the verse is written by THE King. Please demonstrate first, that Solomon was referring to all Kings at all times. The burden is on you. Asside from injecting ones Calvin bias on the text, I don't see anything.

In Proverbs 20:8 he makes a statement that is clearly a gereral statement about any King.
"A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes."

I could elaborate further, but I'm not sure how Molinism can resolve this issue in your eyes. If God merely foreknew (to use the term in an unbiblical manner again) that Hitler will kill 6 million Jews given particular conditions, and yet sovereignly put him in those very conditions, how is He vindicated in the court of human opinion any more that if He sovereignly ordained Hitler's acts by hardening his heart?

PL, aren't you the one who started a thread to just tell everyone how to act regarding contradcitions? Maybe you need your own thread. You have a nasty little habit of ascribing views to others that they don't hold, and then asking them to defend the view. Where have I claimed that Molinism can resolve. WLC is a Molinists and is far more qualified to answer. I have stated in recent threads and past that these things are beyond comprehension. We can apprehend, but comprehension may be out of bounds. I am glad that Calvinism settles it for you. But, bro, for me and many others, it doesn't.

jlay wrote:

puritan lad wrote:If I have taken the verse out of context, you will have to show this.

First, the verse is written by THE King. Please demonstrate first, that Solomon was referring to all Kings at all times. The burden is on you. Asside from injecting ones Calvin bias on the text, I don't see anything.

So, Solomon did not have free will, but all other kings do?

jlay wrote:PL, aren't you the one who started a thread to just tell everyone how to act regarding contradcitions? Maybe you need your own thread. You have a nasty little habit of ascribing views to others that they don't hold, and then asking them to defend the view. Where have I claimed that Molinism can resolve.

Maybe not Molinism in particular, but you have repeated defended the idea of "middle knowledge". In any case, middle knowledge doesn't help resolve anything, chiefly because there in nothing to resolve.

Back on the Calvinism train - all aboard!!

puritan lad wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:For the record, while I disagree vehemently with the position that God is the author of Evil, I respect that PL is willing to face the implications of his positions and own them rather than trying to engineer some sort of explanation that in the end fails and is unsatisfactory. If I were to accept the underlying premises of Calvinism, I'd be more likely to own PLs position than some of the others (not speaking of other people on this board, but rather other positions out there in general) that attempt to double speak themselves into holding self-contradicting positions. That said, I sympathize with the need and the efforts of others to do this because it's not an easy thing to make God the author of evil and then have to deal with the implications of that. This is why I say in other places, that most Calvinists that I know (and the one I was when I could be described as holding some of these positions) do not follow their beliefs through to their logical conclusion but either jump ship before it gets there or appeal to mystery when they've gone as far as they can go.

Calvinists aren't immune to dodging hard passages of Scripture. (My own pastor wants to deny double predestination. I have yet to hear a rational explanation of how that works.)

I haven't seen one that is consistent yet either. I see Sproul's wrestling with it and then I see Boettner stepping up and saying that Mild Calvinism of this form is in the end just weak and sickly and if you water down double predestination you plant the seeds of the entire system collapsing. We come to different conclusions obviously but I agree with the implications of what you're saying in terms of the internal validity and consistency of the system.

Sorry. No desire to hijack the train. There's no way to have this conversation without there being a lot of crossover, however. I've said all I have to say on the issue here.

I don't believe that God is the author of sin (Scripture explicitly says that he is not).

seems like semantic gymnastics too me. Maybe you need to define evil for us. My impression is that evil and sin are two sides of the same coin. Since God says he hates it, and commands us to do the same (Rom 12:9), and to pray to be delievered from it. If God is the author/source of evil, are we to hate him?

So, Solomon did not have free will, but all other kings do?

So you don't beleive people have free will?
This verse isn't surrounded by other verses that are even of the same topic. It is a lot of wise statements. Not a consistent discourse on one idea. Much of Solomon's writings are God allowing us to see into the heart of this King. I am sure Solomon, as many of us do, desired and pledged that his heart be in God's direction. Again, you are imposing your theology onto the text.

I haven't defended the idea of middle knowledge. In fact I even provided a common definition of middle knowledge and said I rejected it. You asked for verses that support middle knowledge. I provided. If someone asked me for verses that support Calvinism I could do that as well. I have considered middle knowledge, but I am not so bold to claim that I have it all figured out. I am still studying, and looking at many things that address a much larger overall perspective.

It just seems that this all comes down to the fact that none of us will no for sure. These are great discussions and are certainly fruitful because I think the tension is needed. It's the tug of war that helps keep the Church flexible and always searching.

puritan lad wrote:

B. W. wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Let me take it a step further. God actually creates evil (Isaiah 45:7). No matter how you slice it, that's what the verse says with honest exegesis.

Actually the KJV translates a Hebrew word used in the text you cited as ‘evil’ when the word actually means ‘calamity’.

The word in Isaiah 45:7 is "ra", and the KJV translates it correctly. It means "evil", specifically moral evil. It will come as no surprise that many Christians are uncomfortable with this rendering, thus many translations substitute "calamity" in place of "evil", as though it really makes any difference (See also Amos 3:6). To settle the issue, all we need to do is see how the word is used in other scriptures. The word appears over 600 times in Scripture, and in all but a handful, it is directly translated as evil or wickedness.

The word is used throughout Genesis to describe the tree of knowledge of good and evil (not good and calamity). It describes the state of man before Noah's flood (Genesis 6:5). It describes the intent of Joseph's brothers toward Joseph when the sold him into slavery. (Genesis 50:20) It describes the evil of Israel in worshipping Baal (Judges 2:11). It describes David's adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12:11).

Is the only possible interpretation, "evil"? Does "ra", have any other meanings, besides evil?

Isaiah 45:7
NIV:I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

NKJV:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

NASB:7 The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing [a]well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

KJV:
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amplified:7I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well-being] and I create [physical] [a]evil (calamity); I am the Lord, Who does all these things.

It's clear that "evil", is not the only literal interpretation. Kinda like yom, means 24 hour day, when one wants to fit it into a YEC worldview, maybe?

He made calamity and darkness the sure result of sin. He made darkness and calamity and evil result from sin.