Evidence for God from Science

Ive heard a couple of the Amish Elders explain that, "It was God's will" that those children were killed.

Without realizing it, aren't they blaming God for what happened?

But was the man who killed them acting as a servant of the true God of heaven? Or was he acting more like a servant of the false god of this world - Satan?

If this was not something God caused to happen, it was obviously something he allowed to happen.

That brings up the question of why He allowed it to happen...

Don

DonCameron wrote:Ive heard a couple of the Amish Elders explain that, "It was God's will" that those children were killed.

Without realizing it, aren't they blaming God for what happened?

But was the man who killed them acting as a servant of the true God of heaven? Or was he acting more like a servant of the false god of this world - Satan?

If this was not something God caused to happen, it was obviously something he allowed to happen.

That brings up the question of why He allowed it to happen...

Don

Welcome to the Aminianism/Calvinism debate .......

I'm not sure, but I think there may be a thread or two around here on that very topic .....

Haha, yes, that old discussion. But, this is interesting, but it is a real life example of the practical implications of the theological systems, isn't it? Was it God's divine plan that this happen?

On a related note, this reminds me of the phrase pastors like to use when someone dies. They tell loved ones, "Well, God called them home!" Malarchy. Whether the death is tragic (as if any death isn't???) or simply from "natural causes," this is a catch phrase we like to use. In all practicality, it isn't any different from what these Amish elders are saying, is it? It's the whole "blame God first" mentality. Sad.

The truth is that we live in a fallen world. God is letting us live here, letting us have things our way for a time. However, He won't let it be like this forever. And, when He does renew the world, everyone will know that God truly is the Great God He claims to be. Peace is only appreciated when contrasted to war.

A bible teacher named Steve Gregg, had this to say in response to this interview from Hannity & Colmes regarding the Amish killings: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217975,00.html

------------------
It's a shame that Hannity & Colmes do not understand this woman's theological presuppositions, which she states several times in the interview. She is a consistent Calvinist. She repeatedly says, "Who is it that controls the minds of men?" She means that God does, and that He controlled the killer of the Amish girls, meaning God ordained their deaths.

She reasons from this starting point that the girls deserved death and God was punishing them, their families and the State of Pennsylvania through this act. She clearly assumes the following: "If something happened, it was the will of God. If it was the will of God, it must have been appropriate." Where her logic breaks down is that she does not reason similarly: "If some people are homosexuals, it is the will of God. If it is the will of God, then it must be appropriate."

This is a good example of where Calvinism must lead, unless it is followed inconsistently.

LowlyOne,

I read that Hannity & Colmes interview. Wow!

Don

LowlyOne -- I believe the hand of God is also in bad things. You say Calvinism must label sins 'appropriate' in order to be consistent. I say they serve a purpose in God's plan (does anyone recall Judas?), but they are not inherently 'appropriate'; in fact, they are violations of God's decreed will, and as such they are worthy of punishment.

Judas's heinous betrayal of Christ was predestined and necessary, but not appropriate.

Turgonian wrote:LowlyOne -- I believe the hand of God is also in bad things. You say Calvinism must label sins 'appropriate' in order to be consistent. I say they serve a purpose in God's plan (does anyone recall Judas?), but they are not inherently 'appropriate'; in fact, they are violations of God's decreed will, and as such they are worthy of punishment.

Judas's heinous betrayal of Christ was predestined and necessary, but not appropriate.

I understand and appreciate that reasoning.

But when you extend the reasoning out to its logical conclusions, Calvinistic determinism in the end cannot escape God as the author of evil. Likewise, Arminian free will in the end must contradict God's foreknowledge and/or omnipotence or lead to open theism.

Where such logical conundrums exist, you either have the question framed in a faulty manner, or you have to accept that God transcends logic and that mystery embraced by faith is part and parcel of Christian Faith.

...Calvinism is not to be equated with determinism. We believe God is NOT the author of sin, and Adam had a libertarian free will before the Fall. This is the conundrum Calvinists posit. Rather than denying mystery, Calvinists place it somewhere else. In Objections Answered: 3. That it makes God the author of sin, Loraine Boettner explains the Calvinist stance regarding the origin of sin.

Loraine Boettner wrote:The objection may be raised that if God has foreordained the entire course of events in this world He must be the Author of Sin. To begin with, we readily admit that the existence of sin in a universe which is under the control of a God who is infinite in His wisdom, power, holiness, and justice, is an inscrutable mystery which we in our present state of knowledge cannot fully explain. As yet we only see through a glass darkly. Sin can never be explained on the grounds of logic or reason, for it is essentially illogical and unreasonable. The mere fact that sin exists has often been urged by atheists and skeptics as an argument not merely against Calvinism but against theism in general.

The Westminster Standards, in treating of the dread mystery of evil, are very careful to guard the character of God from even the suggestion of evil. Sin is referred to the freedom which is given to the agent, and of all sinful acts whatever they emphatically affirm that “the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (V; 4.)

And while it is not ours to explain how God in His secret counsel rules and overrules the sinful acts of men, it is ours to know that whatever God does He never deviates from His own perfect justice. In all the manifestations of His character He shows Himself preeminently the Holy One. These deep workings of God are mysteries, which are to be adored, but not to be inquired into; and were it not for the fact that some persons persist in declaring that the doctrine of Predestination makes God the author of sin, we could let the matter rest here.

A partial explanation of sin is found in the fact that while man is constantly commanded in Scripture not to commit it, he is, nevertheless, permitted to commit it if he chooses to do so. No compulsion is laid on the person; he is simply left to the free exercise of his own nature, and he alone is responsible. This, however, is never a bare permission, for with full knowledge of the nature of the person and of his tendency to sin, God places him or allows him to be in a certain environment, knowing perfectly well that the particular sin will be committed. But while God permits sin, His connection with it is purely negative and it is the abominable thing which he hates with perfect hatred. The motive which God has in permitting it and the motive which man has in committing it are radically different. Many persons are deceived in these matters because they fail to consider that God wills righteously those things which men do wickedly. Furthermore, every person's conscience after he has committed a sin tells him that he alone is responsible and that he need not have committed it if he had not voluntarily chosen to do so.

The Reformers recognized the fact that sin, both in its entrance into the world and in all its subsequent appearances, was involved in the divine plan; that the explanation of its existence, so far as any explanation could be given, was to be found in the fact that sin was completely under the control of God; and that it would be overruled for a higher manifestation of His glory. We may rest assured that God would never have permitted sin to have entered at all unless, through His secret and over-ruling providence, He was able to exert a directing influence on the minds of wicked men so that good is made to result from their intended evil. He works not only all the good and holy affections which are found in the hearts of His people, but He also perfectly controls all the depraved and impious affections of the wicked, and turns them as He pleases, so that they have a desire to accomplish that which He has planned to accomplish by their means. The wicked so often glory in themselves at some accomplishment of their purposes; but as Calvin says, “the event at length proves that they were only fulfilling all the while that which had been ordained of God, and that too, against their own will, while they knew nothing of it.” But while God does overrule the depraved affections of men for the accomplishment of His own purposes, He nevertheless punishes them for their sin and makes them to stand condemned in their own consciences.

A ruler may forbid treason; but his command does not oblige him to do all in his power to prevent disobedience to it. It may promote the good of his kingdom to suffer the treason to be committed, and the traitor to be punished according to law. That in view of this resulting good he chooses not to prevent the treason, does not imply any contradiction or opposition of it in the monarch. (Tyler, Memoir and Lectures, p. 250-252)

And GC Berkouwer, in his essay Human Freedom (Part I), says the following:

GC Berkouwer wrote:Calvin then asks what we are to understand by free will. He is not concerned to extinguish man's will. He emphasizes that man does evil with his will and not through compulsion. One might here speak of a psychological freedom which Calvin would fully acknowledge. But he holds that to call this “free will” is not at all justified, and is most confusing terminology. If “free will” means merely such psychological freedom, fine; but, he says, why give such an unimportant thing so proud a title? On the one hand, he says, it is an excellent thing that man is not compelled to sin; but on the other hand, it is of limited importance, since man is still a sinner in this psychological freedom, this spontaneous action. He is a “willing” servant of sin, and his will is fettered with the shackles of sin. Thus Calvin's opposition to freedom of the will becomes evident. He cites Augustine, who called the will the slave of sin, and said that the will has been used badly and is now imprisoned And the decisive argument for Calvin, as for Augustine, is that man was created with the great powers of a free will, but lost these through sin. It is very clear here — in this loss of the free will — that the concern is not with a metaphysical interpretation of an enslaved will. If Calvin's opposition to free will had been based on a deterministic causality, it would have been impossible for him to distinguish the situations before and after the fall; freedom would never have existed. But this is precisely not the case. Calvin views free will as something which has been lost; man has been deprived of it. The fall marks a basic change, for man lost what he once possessed.

Look closely at the answers you give Turgonian.

You're right, Calvinism does accept mystery and it is a matter of where you place that mystery. My own opinion is that it runds the analogy as far as it possibly can and then makes the type of statement as does Boettner in your quote with this type of statement.

To begin with, we readily admit that the existence of sin in a universe which is under the control of a God who is infinite in His wisdom, power, holiness, and justice, is an inscrutable mystery which we in our present state of knowledge cannot fully explain.

and then

And while it is not ours to explain how God in His secret counsel rules and overrules the sinful acts of men, it is ours to know that whatever God does He never deviates from His own perfect justice.

And then goes on to presume that God's own perfect justice can be understood well enough by us to make the kind of conclusions that some Calvinists, (mostly of the hyper variety) make with rigidity and which in their system brooks no disagreement, even from Scripture passages that indicate otherwise.

Don't presume from this that I am anti-Calvinism. I actually attend a reformed Church although I am not in full accord with all that is taught there in this realm.

A partial explanation of sin is found in the fact that while man is constantly commanded in Scripture not to commit it, he is, nevertheless, permitted to commit it if he chooses to do so. No compulsion is laid on the person; he is simply left to the free exercise of his own nature, and he alone is responsible.

This begs the question, in terms of Adam anyway as to whether he sinned because of any sin nature on his part. It's certainly easy to say that of us and all since Adam. Adam, however, if you believe he sinned because of any flaw or sin nature within him, then it is inescapable that God must have created him that way.

I realize I probably come across as shooting more at Calvinism in these types of debates. That's probably because I feel the need to bring a little balance at times. There are logical conundrums in any system, including Arminianism that attempt to elevate any attribute of God to being the final or primary.

Calvinism does indeed admit to mystery. I think, as a matter of opinion and attempting to reconcile it with the other attributes of God revealed in Scripture that there is a tendency to lean too hard toward determinism and take it too far.

But then, I've wrestled with this a long time and perhaps that is what leads me to avoid the temptation to want to do anymore than make some calls from the sidelines and not get up to my ears with it again. It's an interminable and unwinnable argument from either side. It's simply a matter of how soon a person sees that and at what point they come to peace with allowing that mystery to find its answer in the person of God Himself.

"...that it could not be but that Adam would sin is equally true, considering Adam was subordinate to the decrees of God, determining what Adam would do out of the freedom of his own will." (Christopher Ness, "An Antidote Against Arminianism," 1700, p.54)

If Adam had free will, then how was it that he chose to sin, but fulfilled the divine decree of God. If God did not cause the fall, or in anyway influence Adam's choice, then it cannot be said that he was ordained or decreed by God to choice that. Afterall, a free choice cannot be forced. This is a logical contradiction, not mystery.

Canuckster1127 wrote:This begs the question, in terms of Adam anyway as to whether he sinned because of any sin nature on his part. It's certainly easy to say that of us and all since Adam. Adam, however, if you believe he sinned because of any flaw or sin nature within him, then it is inescapable that God must have created him that way.

I believe he was created flawless; thus, he did not sin from any flaw or sin nature. The sin nature derives from the Original Sin.

Anyway, you take a balanced stance.

LowlyOne wrote:If Adam had free will, then how was it that he chose to sin, but fulfilled the divine decree of God. If God did not cause the fall, or in anyway influence Adam's choice, then it cannot be said that he was ordained or decreed by God to choice that.

It's not a logical contradiction. God did not influence Adam, but He knew Adam would fall. Decree and free will go hand in hand. Adam did not do anything against his will.

The "Divine Decree" aka Predestination in Islam
Islam has a very explicit doctrine of Predestination, referred to as “al Qada wal Qadar” and “the Divine Decree.” It is a central facet of the religion as seen in Mohammed's response to the following request: “Inform me about Iman (faith). He (the Holy Prophet) replied: That you affirm your faith in Allah, in His angels, in His Books, in His Apostles, in the Day of Judgment, and you affirm your faith in the Divine Decree about good and evil.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0001]

Simply put, the doctrine of Al-Qadar is that Allah pre-ordained all things before they happened. It also teaches that he wrote them all down in a book. All things happen because Allah willed them to happen ands wrote them this book.


Allah willed and decreed all sin
Al-Qadar teaches that Allah is the designer and author of all evil. Thus, every single murder, rape and child molestation takes place because Allah pre-ordained them to happen. In case you think I might be making this up, check out these quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith:

In an alleged argument between Moses and Adam concerning Adam's sin in the garden of Eden, Adam says said “Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?'” [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 611]. So the first ever sin was pre-ordained by Allah!

The Qur'an speaks of souls which Allah shaped and “breathed into it its wickedness and its piety” (Surah 91:8). Mohammed referred to this verse in the following Hadith: “Two men of the tribe of Muzaina came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, what is your opinion that the people do in the world and strive for, is something decreed for them; something preordained for them and will their fate in the Hereafter be determined by the fact that their Prophets brought them teachings which they did not act upon. and thus they became deserving of punishment? Thereupon, he said: Of course, it happens as it is decreed by Destiny and preordained for them, and this view is confirmed by this verse of the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious:" “Consider the soul and Him Who made it perfect, then breathed into it its sin and its piety (Surah 91:7-8 )" [Sahih Muslim, Book 33, number 6406]

Elsewhere Mohammed says “everyone will do the deeds for which he has been created to do or he will do those deeds which will be made easy for him to do." (i.e. everybody will find easy to do such deeds as will lead him to his destined place for which he has been created).” [Sahih Bukhari, Vol.8, bk 77, number 595]

And: "Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must comrriit." [Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6421]


Allah created some specifically to go to paradise, and some specifically to go to hell fire
Allah does not want all men to go to paradise. If he did, they would all go here. But that is not his will. Thus, he only leads some people to the truth. Only those who Allah has preordained for paradise will become Muslims. No one will want to turn to Allah unless Allah wills them to:

“Surely this is a Reminder; so he who will, takes unto his Lord a way. But you will not unless Allah wills; surely Allah is ever All-knowing, All-wise.” (Surah 76:29-30)

Allah deliberately states that he could have made all people righteous, but his will was always to send some people to burn in hell-fire:

“Had thy Lord [Allah] willed, He would have made mankind one nation; but they continue in their differences excepting those on whom thy Lord has mercy. To that end He created them, and perfectly is fulfilled the word of thy Lord: 'I shall assuredly fill Gehenna with jinn and men all together.' (Surah 11:118-119)

'If We [Allah] had so willed, We could have given every soul its guidance; but now My Word is realized: " Assuredly I shall fill Gehenna with jinn and men all together." (Surah 32:13, cf. 16:93)


Allah deceives and leads astray many
Not only does Allah withhold truth from those he has created for hell, he also actively leads men astray:

“How is it with you, that you are two parties touching the hypocrites, and Allah has overthrown them for what they earned? What, do you desire to guide him whom Allah has led astray? Whom God leads astray, thou wilt not find for him a way.”(Surah 4:88, cf. 30:29)

“Whomsoever Allah desires to guide, He expands his breast to Islam; whomsoever He desires to lead astray, He makes his breast narrow, tight, as if he were climbing to heaven. So Allah lays abomination upon those who believe not.” (Surah 6:125)

“And We have sent no Messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he might make all clear to them; then Allah leads astray whomsoever He will, and He guides whomsoever He will; and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise.” (Surah 14:4)

Turgonian wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:This begs the question, in terms of Adam anyway as to whether he sinned because of any sin nature on his part. It's certainly easy to say that of us and all since Adam. Adam, however, if you believe he sinned because of any flaw or sin nature within him, then it is inescapable that God must have created him that way.

I believe he was created flawless; thus, he did not sin from any flaw or sin nature. The sin nature derives from the Original Sin.

Adam sinned because he could not stand up to the temptation of Eve, who in turn could not stand up to the temptation of Satan. When they disobeyed God and fell for the temptation, sin entered humanity. God promised Adam and Eve eternal happiness if they showed fidelity by not pursuing the knowledge of good and evil. Adam had a choice, let God decide what was good or bad, or seek to decide that for himself. That in itself does not point to a created sinful nature, but giving in to temptation was the entry point of sin, the first putting of self before God.

Do we blame God, Satan or Adam and Eve for the entry of sin into the world?

August wrote:

Turgonian wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:This begs the question, in terms of Adam anyway as to whether he sinned because of any sin nature on his part. It's certainly easy to say that of us and all since Adam. Adam, however, if you believe he sinned because of any flaw or sin nature within him, then it is inescapable that God must have created him that way.

I believe he was created flawless; thus, he did not sin from any flaw or sin nature. The sin nature derives from the Original Sin.

Adam sinned because he could not stand up to the temptation of Eve, who in turn could not stand up to the temptation of Satan. When they disobeyed God and fell for the temptation, sin entered humanity. God promised Adam and Eve eternal happiness if they showed fidelity by not pursuing the knowledge of good and evil. Adam had a choice, let God decide what was good or bad, or seek to decide that for himself. That in itself does not point to a created sinful nature, but giving in to temptation was the entry point of sin, the first putting of self before God.

Do we blame God, Satan or Adam and Eve for the entry of sin into the world?

If you're going to be logically consistent, you would point to Satan, Adam and Eve in terms of commission, Satan being the author or first committer of sin.

In terms of potential and permission if on no other basis than omnipotence and omniscience you'd have to reconcile the fact that God had the power to prevent sin and chose not to do so.

That leaves a few options to my limited understanding.

1. We attribute the allowance of Sin to God.

2. We redefine sin in a manner that recognizes God as its author but seek to attribute some form of esoteric higher purpose, (such as the idea that human free will has no meaning if there is not a viable option to disobey God's will) that shrouds it in mystery this relieving us of the need to defend the Holiness of God.

3. We ascribe mystery to the person of God Himself that admits the conflict of Human understanding with this element of God's Nature and His purpose.

There may be some other options and variations in there as well, I don't proclaim to be exhaustive in this regard.

To some degree, the option you determine, whether on philosophical grounds or scriptural (the latter being preferable) you then apply a hermeneutic which will affect how you interpret Scripture, which verses you prefer to focus upon and which require explanation to remove apparant contradiction.

This is a topic that I have struggled with and researched quite a bit, and it does lead to some difficult questions and answers.

We have to assume God's omnipotence and Biblical inerrancy, as well as God as the ultimate standard and judge of good and evil. The thread seems to be a bit of the rehash of the atheist objection in the form of the problem of evil.

If we are talking about logical consistency, then we have to all the way back to the beginning and ask who created Satan? Since we know that God created all, we can hopefully agree that God also created Satan. Does that not mean that God by implication created evil? To speak about authorship and committer merely postpones the problem, for then we should ask where did the ability or will to do evil come from? To say it came from within the author or committer again does not help us, because where did the "within" come from? We can continue reducing it, but ultimately we logically arrive back at the point that if God is omnipotent, He plays a role in what we perceive as evil.

We don't even have to go that far, Scripture tells us:
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

"calamity" here is from the Hewbrew 'rah', meaning bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong.

We can further see:

2Sa 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

1Ch 21:1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.

Those verse are not contradictory, it tells us what we know about omnipotence, that nothing happens without God willing it, even if it involves Satan. However, David was punished for it. (2 Sa 24:10-14)

Further Scriptural evidence for God's omnipotence:
Exo 4:11 Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

Lam 3:37 Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?
Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

Amo 3:6 Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?

Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Act 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
Act 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

The real question is not whether anything is the will of God. God decrees everything that happens. That brings up the conundrum you stated, why does God not prevent sin if He has the power to do so.

Ultimately, good cannot exist without evil. There simply will not be any good. Although evil is negative, the ultimate end, the glory of God, is positive. God is by nature good and just, so if He decrees that the means of evil will serve to glorify Him, then the decree is by definiton good and just.

This does not affirm that evil is good, but it affirms that God's decree for the existence of evil is good.