dermdoc said:

---

So some of my Calvinist friends think God causes evil since He is sovereign.

Surely you do not think that?

---

Some of my Arminian friends think they can choose their own eternal destiny and that God is sovereign over all.

How's that work?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Y'all need to re-holster your rhetorical pistols and retire this for a while.

---

I honestly get a lot out of the dialogue. I am trying to better understand other perspectives and the idea of defending my own is quite edifying.

So I am not at all coming at this from an aggressive stand point.

I appreciate all that chime in.

---

Agreed

The Banned said:

---

This is the part. This is what I take issue with:

God does not eliminate the effects of the fall when he changes our hearts - that will only be done in the last days. That is no way a reflection of his inability to do so. What He does for His glory is His prerogative

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want? Which is how we get to this quote. He does it for His glory because it's what He wants to happen.

This to me is what should be the bright red flag. God can't want sin. He can allow sin from truly free being that are free to accept or reject Him, but to want the sin to remain? I don't think that works. And as much as you say "He doesn't want us to sin but we choose to", do you really choose to if He could have taken away your fallen state and didn't? He already overwhelmed your will enough to choose Him once? Why not keep going if it wasn't what He wanted?

And that's just with the elect. With the unelected, only He could have elected them. He didn't. Therefore He is making an active choice to keep people stuck in their sin. He wants them there. He wants the sin. This is why monergism (whether Calvin's, Luther's, or even a universalists' version) should be tossed out. Each monergistic view saying that God is the sole actor of salvific faith necessitates the He be the author, or at very least the maintainer, of sin.

This is why Luther didn't like Calvin's views of double predestination. It went "too far" and made God to cause of sin. And Calvin didn't like Luther for stopping too short on what monergistic salvation meant, but tried to argue that God somehow still isn't the cause of sin. They both saw the logical result of each other theologies. And rather than realize they made a mistake, they stuck with it. Even with universalists saying the God will eventually overcome all of our efforts to resist Him only show that God is perfectly fine with our sin right now because He'll fix it all one day.

Synergism, on the other hand, says that He desires (this is for you, Derm) all men be saved, but some of us won't be. Some of us will choose to go our own way. God is not the author of sin, but He allows us to choose it because only though that freedom can love actually exist. He wants there to be zero sin, but the only way to make that happen is to overwhelm our wills, so He doesn't. He lovingly calls us to come back. To get up out of the pig sty and come home, just like the prodigal son.

We've probably all heard that love is an action, not a feeling. If God is taking the loving action to reach out to us AND the loving action of responding to His own call on our behalf, what we have is God just loving Himself through us as vessels for Him to toy around with.

---

I'm failing to see the difference in the question of "why does God allow evil/sin?" when you place it prior to salvation or after. Aside from the obvious answer that God has His reasons of which we likely will never fully understand this side of eternity, God uses sin and evil to bring about His good purpose. After we are saved, He still permits sin so that we can grow in holiness (and probably other purposes of which we do not see or know). I don't know all the "why"s but if God has made the decision to allow evil/sin then it must be good it exists, whether before or after salvation.

I know we can all attest to the ways in which sin in our lives have drawn us to the Lord and worked in our sanctification.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So some of my Calvinist friends think God causes evil since He is sovereign.

Surely you do not think that?

---

Some of my Arminian friends think they can choose their own eternal destiny and that God is sovereign over all.

How's that work?

---

Because He is sovereign. And because of that sovereignty and love (rarely mentioned by Calvinists and never by Calvin in his voluminous Institutes) He gives us the choice.

I am sovereign over my kids but because of my love I let them make their own choices.

I have Calvinist acquaintances who tell me intercessory prayer is worthless because everything is predetermined. And I am serious,

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So some of my Calvinist friends think God causes evil since He is sovereign.

Surely you do not think that?

---

Some of my Arminian friends think they can choose their own eternal destiny and that God is sovereign over all.

How's that work?

---

Because He is sovereign. And because of that sovereignty and love (rarely mentioned by Calvinists and never by Calvin in his voluminous Institutes) He gives us the choice.

I am sovereign over my kids but because of my love I let them make their own choices.

---

Derm, I am with you on this. I wonder how we should understand all the places in the Gospels where the Incarnate Word gives individuals a choice before performing a miracle?

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want?

---

How is this only a problem for my doctrinal stance? We agree that God hates sin. Does God have the power to completely wipe sin from the earth right now in an instant? Why doesn't he?

---

That's entirely my point which I'm probably terrible at getting across. I apologize.

God can wipe all sin from this earth right now. In an instant. But He doesn't. Why?

I don't see any other answer than He wants man to choose Him. He wants us to answer His call. He calls all of us but won't make any of us do anything. This means we have to "do" something in our salvation. We have to choose Him. Then we have to keep choosing Him. That's it. We don't have to stack up X number of good works or avoid X number of bad works as if we earn heaven. We have to do one "work": obey. And that "work" takes on many forms over our entire life, but we can abandon it if we choose.

None of the reformers agreed with this. This is the whole reason for the reformation. We can say it was the Bible alone or faith alone or whatever, but it was because of THEIR definitions of faith alone. And that faith alone could not possibly use one ounce of our energy, if their writings and the writings of the churches they left behind are to believed.

Why is this important? The part that I wrote on love. Love is an action. Love is a choice. If we are incapable of making that choice on our own volition, it is not love, but bondage that keeps us united to God. So God doesn't overwhelm our wills. He doesn't wipe out sin. He gives us the grace to avoid sin, if we so choose, so that we can freely love Him and He can freely love us. Anything short of that is not love.

---

Sure but you're only talking about salvation. Why doesn't he wipe out the other effects of the fall? Disease? Natural disasters? How are those related to how people will choose Him (not saying that sometimes he does use those things, but more in the sense of say, the book of Job?)

---

I don't mind talking about the problem of evil. It does god hand in hand with free will/ God allowing us to act against Him. To stop evil he would have to destroy free will, which is my problem with the Calvinistic view. He's going half way to stopping evil and leaving the rest rather than allowing it.

The main focus of this thread was is faith something we "do". I think the implications of is not "doing" faith is Calvinism, so I think you have been logically consistent. I give Calvinists more credit than most because of that. I just don't think it lines up fully with the Bible, the historical faith or our lived reality.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Does God have the power to completely wipe sin from the earth right now in an instant? Why doesn't he?

---

Mercy. To give more the time to repent.

Some day the cup of iniquity will be full, and the cries of the martyrs and the oppressed for justice will tip the scales.

---

The first statement is a valid biblical point.

The cries of the martyrs and the oppressed for justice will tip the scales? Is that some imaginative theological foray off of Rev 6:9-11 or am I missing another passage?

tipping the scales is just vernacular for changing the balance. not talking about any kind of theological scales.

the blood of the martyrs and the faithful crying out for judgment is kinda everywhere in the scriptures... Revelation, yes, but also Genesis 4:10, Luke 18:7, Psalm 79:10-11, Deuteronomy 32:43, Isaiah 26:21, Matthew 23:35...

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is the part. This is what I take issue with:

God does not eliminate the effects of the fall when he changes our hearts - that will only be done in the last days. That is no way a reflection of his inability to do so. What He does for His glory is His prerogative

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want? Which is how we get to this quote. He does it for His glory because it's what He wants to happen.

This to me is what should be the bright red flag. God can't want sin. He can allow sin from truly free being that are free to accept or reject Him, but to want the sin to remain? I don't think that works. And as much as you say "He doesn't want us to sin but we choose to", do you really choose to if He could have taken away your fallen state and didn't? He already overwhelmed your will enough to choose Him once? Why not keep going if it wasn't what He wanted?

And that's just with the elect. With the unelected, only He could have elected them. He didn't. Therefore He is making an active choice to keep people stuck in their sin. He wants them there. He wants the sin. This is why monergism (whether Calvin's, Luther's, or even a universalists' version) should be tossed out. Each monergistic view saying that God is the sole actor of salvific faith necessitates the He be the author, or at very least the maintainer, of sin.

This is why Luther didn't like Calvin's views of double predestination. It went "too far" and made God to cause of sin. And Calvin didn't like Luther for stopping too short on what monergistic salvation meant, but tried to argue that God somehow still isn't the cause of sin. They both saw the logical result of each other theologies. And rather than realize they made a mistake, they stuck with it. Even with universalists saying the God will eventually overcome all of our efforts to resist Him only show that God is perfectly fine with our sin right now because He'll fix it all one day.

Synergism, on the other hand, says that He desires (this is for you, Derm) all men be saved, but some of us won't be. Some of us will choose to go our own way. God is not the author of sin, but He allows us to choose it because only though that freedom can love actually exist. He wants there to be zero sin, but the only way to make that happen is to overwhelm our wills, so He doesn't. He lovingly calls us to come back. To get up out of the pig sty and come home, just like the prodigal son.

We've probably all heard that love is an action, not a feeling. If God is taking the loving action to reach out to us AND the loving action of responding to His own call on our behalf, what we have is God just loving Himself through us as vessels for Him to toy around with.

---

I'm failing to see the difference in the question of "why does God allow evil/sin?" when you place it prior to salvation or after. Aside from the obvious answer that God has His reasons of which we likely will never fully understand this side of eternity, God uses sin and evil to bring about His good purpose. After we are saved, He still permits sin so that we can grow in holiness (and probably other purposes of whichever do not see or know). I don't know all the "why"s but if God has made the decision to allow evil/sin then it must be good it exists, whether before or after salvation.

I know we can all attest to the ways in which sin in our lives have drawn us to the Lord and worked in our sanctification.

---

This is what I'm driving at. If you take Calvinist doctrine on its face, there is no "allowing". God is choosing for it to happen. Everything by definition must be operating through His expressive will. This makes the problem of evil quite a severe problem. He's forcing His way in to some people lives, choosing to only reduce their sin when He could just stop it altogether. So He wants some of that sin to stay. Others He leaves entirely alone, meaning He wants that sin to stay.

There is no way around Him wanting the sin. He is the source of, or at the very least actively embracing, evil.

Versus the synergistic model of salvation as a process that we go through, meaning of course we're still going to fall into sin. And some people will reject Him altogether, resulting in even greater sin. The only way to stop it is to destroy our free will entirely. He allows evil in order to allow us to freely choose Him. So the problem of evil is purely a human problem and not divinely created. evil is not good. It is never good and it's because it doesn't come from Him. Our free will is good and will always be good, even if we use it to choose evil, because it is the only way for love to exist.

This is a massive difference that I think can make God sound radically different to an non-believer, which is why it seems Calvinist/reformed believers tend to open their evangelizations with how we need to accept/turn to God, repent, follow Him etc. it's all about what we can do when the theology says it's all up to Him to begin with. If they led with "you're either saved or not and it all depends if He picks you" I would bet converts would dry up

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want?

---

How is this only a problem for my doctrinal stance? We agree that God hates sin. Does God have the power to completely wipe sin from the earth right now in an instant? Why doesn't he?

---

That's entirely my point which I'm probably terrible at getting across. I apologize.

God can wipe all sin from this earth right now. In an instant. But He doesn't. Why?

I don't see any other answer than He wants man to choose Him. He wants us to answer His call. He calls all of us but won't make any of us do anything. This means we have to "do" something in our salvation. We have to choose Him. Then we have to keep choosing Him. That's it. We don't have to stack up X number of good works or avoid X number of bad works as if we earn heaven. We have to do one "work": obey. And that "work" takes on many forms over our entire life, but we can abandon it if we choose.

None of the reformers agreed with this. This is the whole reason for the reformation. We can say it was the Bible alone or faith alone or whatever, but it was because of THEIR definitions of faith alone. And that faith alone could not possibly use one ounce of our energy, if their writings and the writings of the churches they left behind are to believed.

Why is this important? The part that I wrote on love. Love is an action. Love is a choice. If we are incapable of making that choice on our own volition, it is not love, but bondage that keeps us united to God. So God doesn't overwhelm our wills. He doesn't wipe out sin. He gives us the grace to avoid sin, if we so choose, so that we can freely love Him and He can freely love us. Anything short of that is not love.

---

Sure but you're only talking about salvation. Why doesn't he wipe out the other effects of the fall? Disease? Natural disasters? How are those related to how people will choose Him (not saying that sometimes he does use those things, but more in the sense of say, the book of Job?)

---

I don't mind talking about the problem of evil. It does god hand in hand with free will/ God allowing us to act against Him. To stop evil he would have to destroy free will, which is my problem with the Calvinistic view. He's going half way to stopping evil and leaving the rest rather than allowing it.

The main focus of this thread was is faith something we "do". I think the implications of is not "doing" faith is Calvinism, so I think you have been logically consistent. I give Calvinists more credit than most because of that. I just don't think it lines up fully with the Bible, the historical faith or our lived reality.

---

Yes but theodicy is the basis for your question - if your answer is that God allows sin to exist to preserve man's libertarian free will, the usual quip (from atheists especially) is going to be "ok, sure, but why does God allow all of that other horrible other destructive stuff to continue to occur that has nothing to do with human decisions?" That's what's behind my answer to your question (we remain in a fallen world with a fallen body that will deteriorate and die - all effects of the fall) because you're asking why he wouldn't completely remove sin if He changes the heart toward repentance. If he were to just remove our own moral capacity to commit transgressions, but left us to get sick and eventually grow old and die or have a fatal slip on the ice on Thursday, are you not left with the same problem in your question?

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is the part. This is what I take issue with:

God does not eliminate the effects of the fall when he changes our hearts - that will only be done in the last days. That is no way a reflection of his inability to do so. What He does for His glory is His prerogative

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want? Which is how we get to this quote. He does it for His glory because it's what He wants to happen.

This to me is what should be the bright red flag. God can't want sin. He can allow sin from truly free being that are free to accept or reject Him, but to want the sin to remain? I don't think that works. And as much as you say "He doesn't want us to sin but we choose to", do you really choose to if He could have taken away your fallen state and didn't? He already overwhelmed your will enough to choose Him once? Why not keep going if it wasn't what He wanted?

And that's just with the elect. With the unelected, only He could have elected them. He didn't. Therefore He is making an active choice to keep people stuck in their sin. He wants them there. He wants the sin. This is why monergism (whether Calvin's, Luther's, or even a universalists' version) should be tossed out. Each monergistic view saying that God is the sole actor of salvific faith necessitates the He be the author, or at very least the maintainer, of sin.

This is why Luther didn't like Calvin's views of double predestination. It went "too far" and made God to cause of sin. And Calvin didn't like Luther for stopping too short on what monergistic salvation meant, but tried to argue that God somehow still isn't the cause of sin. They both saw the logical result of each other theologies. And rather than realize they made a mistake, they stuck with it. Even with universalists saying the God will eventually overcome all of our efforts to resist Him only show that God is perfectly fine with our sin right now because He'll fix it all one day.

Synergism, on the other hand, says that He desires (this is for you, Derm) all men be saved, but some of us won't be. Some of us will choose to go our own way. God is not the author of sin, but He allows us to choose it because only though that freedom can love actually exist. He wants there to be zero sin, but the only way to make that happen is to overwhelm our wills, so He doesn't. He lovingly calls us to come back. To get up out of the pig sty and come home, just like the prodigal son.

We've probably all heard that love is an action, not a feeling. If God is taking the loving action to reach out to us AND the loving action of responding to His own call on our behalf, what we have is God just loving Himself through us as vessels for Him to toy around with.

---

I'm failing to see the difference in the question of "why does God allow evil/sin?" when you place it prior to salvation or after. Aside from the obvious answer that God has His reasons of which we likely will never fully understand this side of eternity, God uses sin and evil to bring about His good purpose. After we are saved, He still permits sin so that we can grow in holiness (and probably other purposes of whichever do not see or know). I don't know all the "why"s but if God has made the decision to allow evil/sin then it must be good it exists, whether before or after salvation.

I know we can all attest to the ways in which sin in our lives have drawn us to the Lord and worked in our sanctification.

---

This is what I'm driving at. If you take Calvinist doctrine on its face, there is no "allowing". God is choosing for it to happen. Everything by definition must be operating through His expressive will. This makes the problem of evil quite a severe problem. He's forcing His way in to some people lives, choosing to only reduce their sin when He could just stop it altogether. So He wants some of that sin to stay. Others He leaves entirely alone, meaning He wants that sin to stay.

There is no way around Him wanting the sin. He is the source of evil.

Versus the synergistic model of salvation as a process that we go through, meaning of course we're still going to fall into sin. And some people will reject Him altogether, resulting in even greater sin. The only way to stop it is to destroy our free will entirely. He allows evil in order to allow us to freely choose Him. So the problem of evil is purely a human problem and not divinely created. His allowing of evil is not good. It is never good and it's because it doesn't come from Him. Our free will is good and will always be good, even if we use it to choose evil, because it is the only way for love to exist.

This is a massive difference that I think can make God sound radically different to an non-believer, which is why it seems Calvinist/reformed believers tend to open their evangelizations with how we need to accept/turn to God, repent, follow Him etc. it's all about what we can do when the theology says it's all up to Him to begin with. If they led with "you're either saved or not and it all depends if He picks you" I would bet converts would dry up

---

How do you interpret Job in a way that squares with all of this?

Zobel said:

---

tipping the scales is just vernacular for changing the balance. not talking about any kind of theological scales.

the blood of the martyrs and the faithful crying out for judgment is kinda everywhere in the scriptures... Revelation, yes, but also Genesis 4:10, Luke 18:7, Psalm 79:10-11, Deuteronomy 32:43, Isaiah 26:21, Matthew 23:35...

---

Yes, souls crying out - plenty of debate on whether those passages have more literal or figurative meaning, but I don't have an opinion on that. The idea that they are any part of the driving factor that "tips the scales" or affects some "balance" that brings the end times...not seeing that.

I don't think so. God allowing us to stay loyal to Him throughout our lives allows sin to be ever present. Our bodies stay mortal because the faith journey is a journey. He doesn't say "believe and I'll snap you back to the garden". He says to stay faithful and you will have eternal life. The fact that He is offering grace rather than shoving it into us solves this issue. It's not a "moment". It's a life, for however long that may be.

I think this is a much bigger issue for the monergistic salvation. Here He is imposing His will, and only He can do it. It is a "moment" type of change and He is choosing to do it in such a way that is intentionally a half measure. That is why you see the total removal of sin as some way of leaving the effects of the fall in place. He has to leave that sin there or we would be immortal. It's a totally different salvation framework that creates this issue for Calvinists, and not the traditional free will framework

Natural disasters are more interesting. I haven't thought heavily on it, but I would guess it's more of a course of the natural world He created doing what the natural world does. It creates hurricanes. It creates wild fires. It creates tornadoes. Are tornados bad if it happens in the middle of nowhere and no one is hurt? Were the tornadoes in the 500s that big of a deal when no one lived in their path? Were hurricanes hitting Galveston a big deal if no one was there to suffer from them? Were the volcanoes that created the islands bad?

We know for a fact that wild fires that don't kill people are great for rejuvenating the earth. Hurricanes bring rain. Volcanoes create fertile soil. Tornados? Not sure about that one, but I bet there is some sort of benefit to nature. But either way, for these "evils" to cease to exist would require God to change the very essence of the natural world that He created simply because some people moved into a place where these things exist.

ETA: anywhere I state the natural world creates, I mean that more as "creates". The natural world we live in has no consciously and creates nothing. The intent was to say that the world is created in a way that the phenomena listed are a part of it.

Why? They are saying - how long? And asking God to avenge, and bring justice. He will. The cup of iniquity will eventually be full, because evil people continue to do evil, and wrong innocents. Eventually God's tolerance for that evil, which is balanced by His desire for their repentance, will come to an end.

It doesn't have to be the end times, but St John portrays it that way. It's both - God acts to end injustice in the short term and in the eschatological frame.

Would you say that God created the natural world and continues to have his hand on everything that occurs? Or that he created the natural world, stepped back, and is watching our human will unfold? Or something else?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would you say that God created the natural world and continues to have his hand on everything that occurs? Or that he created the natural world, stepped back, and is watching our human will unfold? Or something else?

---

Both/and. He is obviously still present. He has obviously sent natural disasters, if the Bible stories are to be believed. That doesn't mean that some storms arent just a product of the natural laws He created. He sustains reality. All this disappears at the snap of His fingers if He wants, so in that respect He is still very active.

Or take something like deadly diseases. It's very clear from the Bible that He can send them. But we also know from lived experience that exposures to certain amounts of chemicals or radiation also cause diseases. We know God miraculously heals people. We also know that people can heal people through natural means. If we are healed through natural means, it doesn't mean He is isn't "active" in the sense that He created and sustains it all. But it doesn't mean He possessed the doctors that healed you or anything like that.

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is the part. This is what I take issue with:

God does not eliminate the effects of the fall when he changes our hearts - that will only be done in the last days. That is no way a reflection of his inability to do so. What He does for His glory is His prerogative

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want? Which is how we get to this quote. He does it for His glory because it's what He wants to happen.

This to me is what should be the bright red flag. God can't want sin. He can allow sin from truly free being that are free to accept or reject Him, but to want the sin to remain? I don't think that works. And as much as you say "He doesn't want us to sin but we choose to", do you really choose to if He could have taken away your fallen state and didn't? He already overwhelmed your will enough to choose Him once? Why not keep going if it wasn't what He wanted?

And that's just with the elect. With the unelected, only He could have elected them. He didn't. Therefore He is making an active choice to keep people stuck in their sin. He wants them there. He wants the sin. This is why monergism (whether Calvin's, Luther's, or even a universalists' version) should be tossed out. Each monergistic view saying that God is the sole actor of salvific faith necessitates the He be the author, or at very least the maintainer, of sin.

This is why Luther didn't like Calvin's views of double predestination. It went "too far" and made God to cause of sin. And Calvin didn't like Luther for stopping too short on what monergistic salvation meant, but tried to argue that God somehow still isn't the cause of sin. They both saw the logical result of each other theologies. And rather than realize they made a mistake, they stuck with it. Even with universalists saying the God will eventually overcome all of our efforts to resist Him only show that God is perfectly fine with our sin right now because He'll fix it all one day.

Synergism, on the other hand, says that He desires (this is for you, Derm) all men be saved, but some of us won't be. Some of us will choose to go our own way. God is not the author of sin, but He allows us to choose it because only though that freedom can love actually exist. He wants there to be zero sin, but the only way to make that happen is to overwhelm our wills, so He doesn't. He lovingly calls us to come back. To get up out of the pig sty and come home, just like the prodigal son.

We've probably all heard that love is an action, not a feeling. If God is taking the loving action to reach out to us AND the loving action of responding to His own call on our behalf, what we have is God just loving Himself through us as vessels for Him to toy around with.

---

I'm failing to see the difference in the question of "why does God allow evil/sin?" when you place it prior to salvation or after. Aside from the obvious answer that God has His reasons of which we likely will never fully understand this side of eternity, God uses sin and evil to bring about His good purpose. After we are saved, He still permits sin so that we can grow in holiness (and probably other purposes of whichever do not see or know). I don't know all the "why"s but if God has made the decision to allow evil/sin then it must be good it exists, whether before or after salvation.

I know we can all attest to the ways in which sin in our lives have drawn us to the Lord and worked in our sanctification.

---

This is what I'm driving at. If you take Calvinist doctrine on its face, there is no "allowing". God is choosing for it to happen. Everything by definition must be operating through His expressive will. This makes the problem of evil quite a severe problem. He's forcing His way in to some people lives, choosing to only reduce their sin when He could just stop it altogether. So He wants some of that sin to stay. Others He leaves entirely alone, meaning He wants that sin to stay.

There is no way around Him wanting the sin. He is the source of evil.

Versus the synergistic model of salvation as a process that we go through, meaning of course we're still going to fall into sin. And some people will reject Him altogether, resulting in even greater sin. The only way to stop it is to destroy our free will entirely. He allows evil in order to allow us to freely choose Him. So the problem of evil is purely a human problem and not divinely created. His allowing of evil is not good. It is never good and it's because it doesn't come from Him. Our free will is good and will always be good, even if we use it to choose evil, because it is the only way for love to exist.

This is a massive difference that I think can make God sound radically different to an non-believer, which is why it seems Calvinist/reformed believers tend to open their evangelizations with how we need to accept/turn to God, repent, follow Him etc. it's all about what we can do when the theology says it's all up to Him to begin with. If they led with "you're either saved or not and it all depends if He picks you" I would bet converts would dry up

---

How do you interpret Job in a way that squares with all of this?

---

My initial impressions of how to interpret Job are coming after not studying it for years. I'd like to ask for your patience while I review it and give you a more thought out answer.

I know I'm not doing the best job of explaining it. The last two weeks have been very insightful, leading to me trying to hone in on this issue, so it's a work in progress. Let me try to focus on the difference between God "wanting" sin and God "not wanting" sin.

God wants sin (Calvinism/Reformed):

- humans are subject to total depravity (because of the fall), and as such, are incapable of seeking God in their now natural state
- Because they cannot seek God, all of their actions are tainted by sin/are sinful
- Because of this, even an unbeliever giving up their life to save another is not without the taint of sin, as only God inserting Himself through grace into that person's life can result in them doing something truly good.
- God only chooses a certain amount of people to give this grace to, meaning that all of the people that do not receive it will stay in utter sin
- Those that do receive it only receive enough to be able to pick virtue over sin a percentage (which varies) of the time in their life
- God is sovereign and never fails to get what brings Him glory
- Therefore, if the believers still sin from time to time, the unbelievers sin in all they do, and God gets what He wants, God wants sin


God does NOT want sin:

- humans have to deal with original sin (a self inflicted deprivation of the good) due to the fall, which means that while they may intuit there is a higher power (such as Aristotle), they cannot name it and struggle against their own selfish desires.
- Because they are made in God's image, they can choose to do good and selfless things, but the choice is complicated by the original sin
- Original sin is a result of the utterly free will choice of Eve and Adam. Free will was necessary for a true loving relationship to exist, which made the original sin a possibility
- God could have made Adam and Eve without free will and avoided this, but elevated the loving relationship over that of captivity
- Because God still elevates freely given love/worship/relationship over forced compliance, repairing this damage requires us to choose Him
- Because of our fallen state, He has to initiate the repair through His offering of grace, which He offers all Humans.
- Because true love can only exist where free will exists, some people reject this grace and choose to remain in a life of sin
- Similarly, because true love can only exist where free will exists, choosing to accept God's grace necessitates the ability to later reject it. Because we can later reject it, it means the moments in between acceptance and death are filled with moments to turn away, even if momentarily
- During this entire process, God wants us ALL to choose Him. But because what He desires most is for man to choose Him, the opportunity to reject Him must exist.
- Therefore, if God wants us to freely choose Him and avoid sin, and freely choosing must never become a captive situation, people must be capable of rejecting His love and staying in sin regardless of how much He doesn't want them to. Hence the term "allowing".

I probably still did a terrible job of breaking that all down, but I'm still trying to work out how to put this into more condensed terminology that works for both sides when we both views this issue so differently due to our faith traditions.

To Job, as I told tk, I need a refresher and will respond later. Shame on me for not being more prepared.

As to your ETA: exactly how I feel. I don't see this as an attempt to convince, denigrate, humiliate or any other manner of negative actions from either side. I have found this immensely helpful. I do not think anyone on here is attempting to do less than their best for the one, true God. I see this as an awesome example of just trying to understand what we can and try in whatever flawed way we can to get on the same page. Jesus prayed for unity. We have certain divisions. The only way to heal that is to talk it out.

ETA: I know this is the second time I brought up "how a Calvinist should evangelize" and the second time I was shot down. Might have been you both times. But it does make me realize I may be taking for granted how you (or other Calvinist/reformed) choose to phrase the "pitch" (for lack of a better word). I'd like to hear how it's normally offered among your faith group/tradition

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So some of my Calvinist friends think God causes evil since He is sovereign.

Surely you do not think that?

---

Some of my Arminian friends think they can choose their own eternal destiny and that God is sovereign over all.

How's that work?

---

I have Calvinist acquaintances who tell me intercessory prayer is worthless because everything is predetermined. And I am serious,

---

That is 100% not part of Calvinism. Your "acquaintance" is fatalist.

Falls under "hyper" Calvinism which also involves the neglect of sharing the gospel since it's already worked out.

Thanks for the answers. And very good to know.

I declare it to be an anathema. Is that how it works?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I declare it to be an anathema. Is that how it works?

---

Interesting situation… if a hyper Calvinist says they felt God change them completely and turned them into a Christian, whatever call post regeneration they are experiencing is saying that they don't need to evangelize, and a true Calvinist is saying this goes against God, what are the implications for said hyper Calvinist?

I honestly don't know and may ask my pastor. My guess is that membership would not be allowed and exclusion from the Lord's table possibly? If already a member the church discipline process would likely come into play.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I declare it to be an anathema. Is that how it works?

---

Interesting situation… if a hyper Calvinist says they felt God change them completely and turned them into a Christian, whatever call post regeneration they are experiencing is saying that they don't need to evangelize, and a true Calvinist is saying this goes against God, what are the implications for said hyper Calvinist?

---

It is way too confusing for me to understand.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I declare it to be an anathema. Is that how it works?

---

Interesting situation… if a hyper Calvinist says they felt God change them completely and turned them into a Christian, whatever call post regeneration they are experiencing is saying that they don't need to evangelize, and a true Calvinist is saying this goes against God, what are the implications for said hyper Calvinist?

---

The implication is that he needs to get out of the dark corners of the internet where you find that stuff without rebuke, and into a church. To say that prayer and evangelism are unnecessary throws the whole bible in the trash can.

I have also had Calvinists tell me God does not love every person which I do not agree with.

I tried to tackle this before with some of Sproul's commentary helping.

Idea that there are different types of love in which God extends...a more general and benevolent love for all of his creation. And then a special, salvific love for his chosen or elect.

Again, I think it is important to not just assume God's love is how we feel it or think it should be. The main idea I am trying to convey is that I don't think we can fully even grasp how God loves and to box it into our finite human experience could give us the wrong picture there.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I tried to tackle this before with some of Sproul's commentary helping.

Idea that there are different types of love in which God extends...a more general and benevolent love for all of his creation. And then a special, salvific love for his chosen or elect.

Again, I think it is important to not just assume God's love is how we feel it or think it should be. The main idea I am trying to convey is that I don't think we can fully even grasp how God loves and to box it into our finite human experience could give us the wrong picture there.

---

I disagree as you might imagine. I think God loves all of His created people the same.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I tried to tackle this before with some of Sproul's commentary helping.

Idea that there are different types of love in which God extends...a more general and benevolent love for all of his creation. And then a special, salvific love for his chosen or elect.

Again, I think it is important to not just assume God's love is how we feel it or think it should be. The main idea I am trying to convey is that I don't think we can fully even grasp how God loves and to box it into our finite human experience could give us the wrong picture there.

---

The interesting thing is your second paragraph seems to take exactly how humans love and applying it to God. People can "love everybody" but we aren't actually capable of loving everybody the same because we don't know everybody. We should have a general love for humanity and don't want to see anyone suffer. But we have a special love for our spouse or children because they are special to us in a way the rest of the world is not.

I get that you aren't saying that this is for sure how God operates, and that you're open to letting Him love how He chooses, but this seems like we're bringing God down to our level

Yeah, I would say it may not be possible to consider love without some of our predisposed inclinations.

And since we are on the topic, it is harder for me to fathom a God whom loves all human beings equally with his special, saving love, but yet for many who do not repent, he gives an ultimate judgement of eternal separation from him. Almost mind blowing to think of a God loving all the same and handing out such different judgement in the end.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I tried to tackle this before with some of Sproul's commentary helping.

Idea that there are different types of love in which God extends...a more general and benevolent love for all of his creation. And then a special, salvific love for his chosen or elect.

Again, I think it is important to not just assume God's love is how we feel it or think it should be. The main idea I am trying to convey is that I don't think we can fully even grasp how God loves and to box it into our finite human experience could give us the wrong picture there.

---

The interesting thing is your second paragraph seems to take exactly how humans love and applying it to God. People can "love everybody" but we aren't actually capable of loving everybody the same because we don't know everybody. We should have a general love for humanity and don't want to see anyone suffer. But we have a special love for our spouse or children because they are special to us in a way the rest of the world is not.

I get that you aren't saying that this is for sure how God operates, and that you're open to letting Him love how He chooses, but this seems like we're bringing God down to our level

---

Agree. It seems like it is limiting God and His love. Scripture states God is love. And I believe we are only capable of love due to God.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

And since we are on the topic, it is harder for me to fathom a God whom loves all human beings equally with his special, saving love, but yet for many who do not repent, he gives an ultimate judgement of eternal separation from him. Almost mind blowing to think of a God loving all the same and handing out such different judgement in the end.

---

Paraphrasing CS Lewis here - In the end, there are two types of people: those who say to God "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says "Thy will be done." Those who end up in hell choose that as their final destination. And, our all loving God, respecting their free will because that's what authentic love requires, grants their wish.