Is determinism evil ?

[The Rogue Tomato]

I would agree "there is nothing wrong" with that in a moral sense, but it would also not be maximally loving, which is the character God has revealed to us. When we speak of absolving God of moral responsibility, we must be extra careful and clear to explain exactly what we mean, for both sides are going to have to admit God "allowed" a thing.

Not me. When God told the angel he could give a false prophesy, he didn't "allow" it. He approved it. God cannot lie, but he approved of the angel's plan to lie. I have no problem with that.

God cannot possibly declare the end from the beginning and have it come as a shock to him that satan rebels. Nor can it come as a shock to God that Adam and Eve would sin.

God doesn't fit in a human-conceived box. God does all things according to his good pleasure. If we can't understand why he would create vessels of wrath predestined for destruction, the problem is not with God. It is with our image of God.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Since evil is an eisegetical interpretation we also can accept it means calamity as the scholars suggest which does not impinge upon HIS holiness, godliness nor loving nature in the least.

That was the point of my joke about using the KJV. And it's not eisegesis, it's the fact that language has changed. Once it made sense to say, "that's an evil odor" instead of "that's a foul odor". English, you've come a long way, baby.

 

[TedT]

That was the point of my joke about using the KJV. And it's not eisegesis, it's the fact that language has changed. Once it made sense to say, "that's an evil odor" instead of "that's a foul odor". English, you've come a long way, baby.

oops

 

[civic]

You are speaking too broadly and generically, the very thing I was talking about.

If God allows a thing—any thing at all—there must be some sense in which he wants that thing if he has the power to stop it. There is also some sense in which he is responsible for that thing if he does not stop it.

It is important to emphasis "some" sense and not every sense, but this does make the problem not simplistic as too many want to paint it.

What we say then is that evil is God's secondary desire and not his primary desire, and we find a harmonization there.

Gods will and desire is accomplished by His predetermined plan whether it primary or secondary. That’s just semantics. In Calvinism God is responsible for everything that comes to pass.

 

[Dizerner]

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

I still think that clearly refers to individuals

Two things to note in this passage in the Greek.

The words both translated "prepared" are different words in the Greek and so clearly the author did not mean them to be identical.

The phrase "prepared for destruction" is most likely in the middle reflexive sense, meaning more accurately "fitted themselves."

There is a way to read Romans 9 and maintain LFW, and I do so here:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/an-arminian-dares-to-walk-through-the-text-of-romans-9.174/#post-2782

 

[Dizerner]

Not me. When God told the angel he could give a false prophesy, he didn't "allow" it. He approved it. God cannot lie, but he approved of the angel's plan to lie. I have no problem with that.

Mhm, and that is just one example, but I know what you mean. I'm glad you embrace the logically consistent conclusions of your own position. I wish every proponent of EDD did that and eliminated the word "allow" altogether.

God cannot possibly declare the end from the beginning and have it come as a shock to him that satan rebels. Nor can it come as a shock to God that Adam and Eve would sin.

God does not need to declare a thing to not be "shocked," by which I think you mean more surprised, omniscience alone is enough.

God doesn't fit in a human-conceived box. God does all things according to his good pleasure. If we can't understand why he would create vessels of wrath predestined for destruction, the problem is not with God. It is with our image of God.

Although God reveals he has the right to create things just to destroy them, he also reveals that is not at all his character.

This would put something of evil into the very character of God to ever make it his primary desire.

 

[Dizerner]

That’s just semantics. In Calvinism God is responsible for everything that comes to pass.

No, it's not "just semantics."

It literally protects the character of God while still admitting God has the ultimate responsibility for allowing all evil things he could stop.

What separates God out from evil is creating delegated or secondary autonomy which allows him to not necessarily primarily desire the choices of what he has made.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Two things to note in this passage in the Greek.

The words both translated "prepared" are different words in the Greek and so clearly the author did not mean them to be identical.

The phrase "prepared for destruction" is most likely in the middle reflexive sense, meaning more accurately "fitted themselves."

There is a way to read Romans 9 and maintain LFW, and I do so here:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/an-arminian-dares-to-walk-through-the-text-of-romans-9.174/#post-2782

I'm not sure even Stretch Armstrong could survive that. It's more literally, "Having been fitted for destruction". Who did the fitting? It doesn't say "having fitted themselves" for anything.

More important, the context of Romans 9 revolves around this: "11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:"

God does the electing before anyone is even born. What we do has nothing to do with it.

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Dizerner]

I'm not sure even Stretch Armstrong could survive that. It's more literally, "Having been fitted for destruction". Who did the fitting? It doesn't say "having fitted themselves" for anything.

That's not how grammar works, you can't just "declare" it so by fiat. The middle can allow the subject to act on itself.

God does the electing before anyone is even born. What we do has nothing to do with it.

Your loading election with a whole lot of baggage that doesn't follow just from the text.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This would put something of evil into the very character of God to ever make it his primary desire.

So says you. I don't see it that way, at all. It's all part of God's plan, and we're not privy to the details. So I take the scripture for what it says. I don't try to massage it to make it fit what I think God should be.

 

[Dizerner]

So says you. I don't see it that way, at all. It's all part of God's plan, and we're not privy to the details. So I take the scripture for what it says. I don't try to massage it to make it fit what I think God should be.

I'm saying it logically follows. There is no logical way around that, unless you want to abandon logic, which leads to some odd scenarios.

You can't just say "Well so says you that 2 + 2 = 4, but I don't see it that way at all," unless you are no longer being coherent in some sense.

And if you do not want to "massage" Scripture as you claim, then see my proof of Libertarian free will here:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/yes-calvinists%E2%80%94free-will-is-in-the-bible.98/

I invite your response there.

 

[e v e]

You are speaking too broadly and generically, the very thing I was talking about.


Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

I chose that particular translation for the benefit of KJVOs.

kjv is so corrupt....