I don't think you have the right Colin Smith.
Dave,
I have always had trouble understanding Calvinism from this perspective. I think it is sort of interesting that Socrates was put to death for teaching that the Olympian gods could not be gods at all since they were capable of doing evil. He argues that a god that ordains and actively does evil is not a god at all. I must ask what is the point of Satan or hell or damnation if God makes people sin? The Calvinist point of view almost makes God out to be some sort of divine bully that likes to misuse his toys in some sort of game. I realize that they don't believe that but such an argument, if true, certainly leads one to question whether God exists at all.
Hi Tipster,
How do you know that? I looked again for more information on this person and couldn't find any. It seemed to fit the "Colin Smith" I found since he was British and had a philosophical background.
Of course I'll correct the mistake if it is verified that it is the wrong person. I'll probably go ahead and do it anyway, because it's true that I couldn't be absolutely sure it was this person I discovered on the Internet.
I revised the paper slightly at 1:45 PM EST Saturday, to change the data regarding Colin Smith, correct typos, and change the wording a little in a few places.
Dave,
The Catholic position is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart by withholding his grace to him and leaving him to himself. Although that is the technical explanation, it is perfectly fine to say that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart", the "pre-philosophical" vocabulary notwithstanding.
Your long article makes it seem like there are differences in theology when there is really is none. You are just boxing at air. Additionally, these long and windy debates make the sectarians believe that there is a fundamental difference on this issue when there really is none, thus perpetuating the whole damn schism.
Very good paper Dave, liked it a lot, much of it fits very well with what Scott Hahn I believe has said (and also Jacob Michael has written) on this.
If I may ask a question, though: If God cannot be persuaded, then how are we to understand God's being persuaded not to destroy certain cities by Abraham, or the Israelite people by Moses?
Moreover, how are we to understand the nature of intercessory prayer? Does intercessory prayer have any effect on God at all? If not, then why do we do it?
Or is it that God foresees (by His Scientia Media, if we are coming from a Molinist approach) our prayers from eternity, and conditions His sovereign working on Earth on these?
Sorry, I've been looking at the Intercession of the Saints lately, and this is an area I'm exploring... so I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions!
Grace and Peace be with you,
Peter
BTW, Charlie, if you don't think there's any difference on this issue, then I don't think you've looked into the subject enough. Try talking with a Calvinist sometime!
Is 'Limited Atonement' not an issue, or 'Irresistible Grace', or 'Assurance of Salvation', or the existence of Free Will?
Grace and Peace be with you,
Peter
Peter,
I have debated Calvinists on this blog and elsewhere many times in the past. I have also read the works of Catholic theologians and Protestant theologians on this issue. After all that, I really don't think that there is a difference between Calvinists and Catholics on this issue.
Of course, if you are a Molinist, then that is a little different. I think that there are valid arguments to be made on either side. But that should be rather a debate among theologians of the Church. It should not be an ecclesial debate.
Of course, some Calvinists are always going to make it seem like it is a church-defining difference. That plays in with their 500-year old program of schism. For Dave to play into their hands and make this into an overblown church-dividing issue is inappropriate. Dave, as a Catholic apologist, should not be debatig non-Catholics on an issue that faithful Catholics can disagree on.
Charlie,
It seems like Dave expressed what you said in the first few paragraphs of the article.
Also, it was in reply to a reply to a reply, which was originally intended for non-christians.
Richard,
You're right, but it would have been much better if Dave had just left it at that, and not went on to defend Arminianism or such like.
Okay Charlie; what, then, do you make of Trent, Canon VI on Justification, and several passages from St. Thomas Aquinas?:
"If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema."
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:
"...foresight of sins can be some reason for reprobation... inasmuch as God proposes to punish the wicked for sins which they have of themselves, not from God, but He proposes to reward the just because of merits, which they do not have of themselves. Osee, 13:9:' Your ruin is from yourself, Israel; only in me is your help.' ... Those whom He hardens, earn that they
be hardened by Him."
(Commentary on Romans, Chapter 8, lessons 1,2,3)
[emphases added, as throughout]
But John Calvin writes, to the contrary:
"If, then, we cannot determine a reason why he vouchsafes mercy to his own, except that it so pleases him, neither shall we have any reason for rejecting others, other than his will. For when it is said that God hardens or shows mercy to whom he wills, men are warned by this to seek no cause outside his will . . ."
"Those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children . . ."
". . . we have by now been taught that hardening is in God's hand and will, just as much as mercy is [Rom 9:14 ff.] . . . This plainly means that all those whom the Heavenly Father has not deigned to plant as sacred trees in his field are marked and intended for destruction . . . "God aroused Paraoh [Rom 9:17]; then, 'he hardens whom he pleases' [Rom 9:18]. From this it follows that God's secret plan is the cause of the hardening . . ."
(Institutes, III, 22, 11 / III, 23, 1, Vol. 2, 947-949 in 1960 edition)
"It is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God's mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! . . . Besides, their perdition depends upon the predestination of God in such a way that the cause and occasion of it are found in themselves . . ."
"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault."
(III, 23, 8, Vol. 2, 956-957)
See also: St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Contra Gentiles:
That God cannot will Evil
EVERY act of God is an act of virtue, since His virtue is His essence (Chap. XCII).
2. The will cannot will evil except by some error coming to be in the reason, at least in the matter of the particular choice there and then made. For as the object of the will is good, apprehended as such, the will cannot tend to evil un
(cont.)
. . . unless evil be somehow proposed to it as good; and that cannot be without error.* But in the divine cognition there can be no error (Chap. LXI). 3. God is the sovereign good, admitting no intermixture of evil (Chap. LXI). 4. Evil cannot befall the will except by its being turned away from its end. But the divine will cannot be turned away from its end, being unable to will except by willing itself (Chap. LXXV). It cannot therefore will evil; and thus free will in it is naturally established in good. This is the meaning of the texts: God is faithful and without iniquity (Deut. xxxii, 4); Thine eyes are clean, O Lord, and thou canst not look upon iniquity (Hab. i, 13).
(Book I: Of God As He Is In Himself, 95)
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//...text/
gc1_95.htm
That it is reasonably reckoned a Man's own Fault if he be not converted to God, although he cannot be converted without Grace
To solve this doubt, we must observe that though one can neither merit divine grace beforehand, nor acquire it by movement of his free will, still he can hinder himself from receiving it: for it is said of some: They have said unto God, 'Depart from us, we will not have the knowledge of thy ways' (Job xxi, 14). And since it is in the power of free will to hinder the reception of divine grace or not to hinder it, not undeservedly may it be reckoned a man's own fault, if he puts an obstacle in the way of the reception of grace. For God on His part is ready to give grace to all men: He wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. ii, 4). But they alone are deprived of grace, who in themselves raise an obstacle to grace. So when the sun lights up the world, any evil that comes to a man who shuts his eyes is counted his own fault, although he could not see unless the sunlight first came in upon him.*
(Book III: God the End of Creatures, 160)
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//...ext/
gc3_160.htm
That God is Cause of Sin to no Man
THOUGH there are some sinners whom God does not convert to Himself, but leaves them in their sins according to their deserts, still He does not induce them to sin.
1. Men sin by deviating from God their last end. But as every agent acts to its own proper and befitting end, it is impossible for God's action to avert any from their ultimate end in God.
2. Good cannot be the cause of evil, nor God the cause of sin.
3. All the wisdom and goodness of man is derived from the wisdom and goodness of God, being a likeness thereof. But it is repugnant to the wisdom and goodness of man to make any one to sin: therefore much more to divine wisdom and goodness.
4. A fault always arises from some defect of the proximate agent, not from any defect of the prime agent. Thus the fault of limping comes from some defect of the shin-bone, not from the locomotor power, from which power however is whatever perfect
(cont.)
. . . perfection of movement appears in the limping. But the proximate agent of human sin is the will. The sinful defect then is from the will of man, not from God, who is the prime agent, of whom however is whatever point of perfect action appears in the act of sin.*
Hence it is said: Say not, He himself hath led me astray: for he hath no use for sinful men: He hath commanded none to do impiously, and he hath not given to any man license to sin (Ecclus xv, 12, 21): Let none, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God: for God tempteth no man to evil (James i, 13).
Still there are passages of Scripture, from which it might seem that God is to some men the cause of sin. Thus it is said: I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh and his servants (Exod. x, 1): Blind the heart of this people, and make its ears dull, and close its eyes, lest perchance it see with its eyes, and be converted, and I heal it: Thou hast made us wander from thy ways: Thou hast hardened our heart, that we should not fear thee (Isai. vi, 10: lxiii, 17): God delivered them over to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not seemly (Rom. i, 2
. All these passages are to be understood as meaning that God does not bestow on some the help for avoiding sin which He bestows on others. This help is not merely the infusion of grace, but also an exterior guardianship, whereby the occasions of sin are providentially removed from a man's path. God also aids man against sin by the natural light of reason, and other natural goods that He bestows on man.* When then He withdraws these aids from some, as their conduct deserves that he should, according to the exigency of His justice, He is said to harden them, or to blind them.
(Book III: God the End of Creatures, 163)
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//...ext/
gc3_163.htm
Hi Neo,
>If I may ask a question, though:
Of course; feel free!
>If God cannot be persuaded, then how are we to understand God's being persuaded not to destroy certain cities by Abraham, or the Israelite people by Moses?
Anthropomorphism and God's desire to include men in His plans. Also, I would say that God's judgment can always be tempered by His mercy. He could explode the earth right now and it woujld be perfectly just. He only refrains fro doing that because of His mercy. So God included Abraham in this particular instance of expression of His mercy.
>Moreover, how are we to understand the nature of intercessory prayer? Does intercessory prayer have any effect on God at all? If not, then why do we do it?
If it be in His will, He'll answer it, as one Scripture says (I believe in 1 John). Our prayers are always conditioned by that.
>Or is it that God foresees (by His Scientia Media, if we are coming from a Molinist approach) our prayers from eternity, and conditions His sovereign working on Earth on these?
I would say that, yes (being a Molinist). But I think any position on how God's Providence works would come down to something like this, with regard to prayer.
Charlie wrote a whole post about me on his blog, entitled:
This is Why the Reformation Has Lasted for So Long... or, why Protestants continually misunderstand Catholic teaching.
http://blog.ancient-future.net/2...lasted-
for.html
It's all my fault, because I defend God against a virtually blasphemous charge that He is the author of sin.
I responded:
Hi Charlie,
This is thoroughly wrongheaded. My reply had virtually nothing to do with Molinism. The subject matter was whether God positively ordains evil acts (or whether, as I argue, He permits them in His permissive will and then incorporates them into His providence).
Catholicism says no; Calvinism yes. All orthodox Catholics agree on this, as far as I understand. Why do I say that? On what basis? Well, how about Trent, Canon VI on Justification? [I cited it; see it above]:
Is a Catholic (Thomist or no) free to disbelieve that?
I also cited many many passages from St. Thomas Aquinas, stating that God never ordains evil as part of His plan.
To accuse me, therefore, of perpetuating unnecessary divisions is plain foolish and misinformed. If you want to maintain your big beef with Molinists, feel free. I argued it once at length and moved on. But this is a real difference between Calvinism and any form of Catholic soteriology. It can't be glossed over or denied or rationalized away.
Your remarks lead me to believe that you need to study up more on what Calvinism teaches and how it differs from Thomism. Sure, there are similarities, but this particular topic is not one. It is a flat-out irreconcilable contradiction between the two positions. And I think you could have easily seen that in my dialogue if you weren't so quick to jump on the Thomist vs. Molinist issues, which are almost entirely extraneous to the question of whether God ordains evil and causes it Himself. St. Thomas and Trent say no. You say yes? You know who I will follow . . .
Dave Armstrong
Charlie wrote:
"After all that, I really don't think that there is a difference between Calvinists and Catholics on this issue."
There certainly is a huge difference on the issue I actually debated: does God positively will and ordain sin and evil? Catholics say NO. Calvinists say YES. BIG difference . . .
"It should not be an ecclesial debate."
I say it should, if God's character is being pilloried by folks who say He would actually cause evil and agree in His will with the devil himself. I think that is entirely worth fighting over. But as someone noted, I was originally dialoguing with atheists on the "Pharaoh hardening his heart" issue. The Calvinists (James White and Colin Smith) then came and made it a public issue between Christians. That is where the blame should be attached, if there is to be any.
"For Dave to play into their hands and make this into an overblown church-dividing issue is inappropriate."
But I deny doing that. The man critiqued my paper, and I replied. This is what any writer and apologist worth his salt should do. This is the world of ideas; this is using the grey matter between our ears. I either defend my beliefs or modify them if shown to be wrong.
Dave, as a Catholic apologist, should not be debating non-Catholics on an issue that faithful Catholics can disagree on.
But we cannot disagree on it (i.e., that God causes or ordains sin). Your premise is wrong. We can't disagree with Trent, and we are almost always foolish to disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas, though that is not a dogmatic matter like Trent. Mainly it is an inconsistency in your own position.
You disagree? Show me why.
Hi Dave,
Welcome to the blog. First of all, I would like to make it clear that you are not to blame for the whole controversy over this issue, which I think is a pointless contoversy.
You will notice that I wrote this in my post:
"The dichotomy that Smith makes between Catholicism and Arminianism on the one hand and the "Reformed position" on the other is a false distinction. It would be more accurate to distinguish between those who believe in intrinsically efficacious grace (Calvinism, Thomism) and those who believe in extrinsically efficacious grace (Molinism, Arminianism)."
My point was that IF we are going to have this controversy, it should not break down across Catholic/Protestant lines. There are differences between the schools of thought, such as between Molinism and Thomism. The schools do not constitute seperate churches and should not be a church-dividing issue.
I also gave an example of what I think are the best ways for debating the issues. I objected to the Calvinists' incessant use of Pauline texts to proove their point, because those texts do not arrive at the heart of the dispute. They only establish that God is sovereign, but not how god is sovereign.
As for the question of whether God caused the hardening of Pharaoh's heart or not - I think that this does not need to be an area of dispute between Calvinists and Catholics. As long as we understand what we mean when we say that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart," I dont think that there is a problem.
Catholics understand the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to have been worked out by God's withholding of grace from Pharaoh. I have also seen a lot of Calvinists agree with this understanding. Even though it isn't stated in the biblical text, it is what most respectable thinkers on God would agree on. When Calvinists say that God "decrees" sin, they mean pretty much the same thing as Catholics do when we say that he "permits" it. Perhaps the conflation of the terms "decree" and "permit" does lead to bad theological distortions, but does it really need to be the overblown issue that it is if we both mean the same thing?
Thus I wrote:
"The sovereignty of God is certainly an issue that should not be church-dividing. On the issue of whether God hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example, I think that there is more agreement than many people would like to admit. The Thomist position is that God allowed Pharaoh's heart to be hardened by withholding grace from him. There is even a sense in which it is possible to say that God decreed it to happen."
It is possible to say that God positively decreed Pharaoh's heart to be hardened, if by that we mean that he positively permitted the sin he knew would happen by withholding his grace. And so it is possible to use a terminology that is substantially the same as that of the Calvinists', while at the same time being orthodox. And of course, I do not think that most Calvinists would disagree with how, f
So you maintain that Calvinists like White and Smith know their own position even less than you understand their position?
Secondly, are you claiming that John Calvin wasn't really saying that God positively ordains sin, even though several fellow Calvinists or Church historians maintain that he was a supralapsarian or something close?
If God ordained the fall itself, after all, obviously that didn't depend on withholding grace, or man's fault. It was positively ordained. It occurred before man could have any fault to even condemn. There is no middle knowledge that could be brought to bear. It's all God.
Thirdly, just who did Trent have in mind when it condemned God positively ordaining sin? Are you claiming that no Protestants at the time actually taught that heresy? If so, why would Trent make the condemnation?
Fourth, you wrote:
"It is possible to say that God positively decreed Pharaoh's heart to be hardened, if by that we mean that he positively permitted the sin he knew would happen by withholding his grace."
It doesn't strike me that Smith was arguing that way (nor Calvin). Now, if you wish to contend that Calvinists today are fundamentally at odds with John Calvin on this point, I'd love to see you try to make that argument on a Calvinist board (or in the White chat room, for that matter). If you ever try, please let me know (or send me a transcript).
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the response, you pretty much re-affirmed what I thought (which is always nice, lol).
Although, just to clarify, when you say that God's apparent persuasion away from disaster by Abraham and Moses is, "Anthropomorphism and God's desire to include men in His plans.", do you mean that whilst to the human writers of the Old Testament, it appeared that God had been 'persuaded', He had actually not planned to, but wished to include Abraham in this by His exhortation to mercy?
If so, this seems odd to me - if God had planned all along not to destroy those cities, and yet told Abraham that He would, then wouldn't this be a sort of falsehood on God's behalf? After all, He said that He *would* destroy the citries, and yet His eternal unchanging will must have always been that He wouldn't (since He didn't).
Therefore, was God being false? He would have told Abraham He would do something He never had any intention of doing...
On the other hand, from a middle knowledge perspective, God's mercy could have been eternally contingent on Abraham's intercession, but that would still mean that God would have always known Abraham's actions, and so would never have truly willed to destroy those cities, which returns us to our problem.
Unless of ocurse, God's will can be changed. Yet this seems to violate God's immutability.
Have I missed something?
Grace and Peace be with you,
Peter
I could not disagree with Charlie more on this problem. Charlie says:
As for the question of whether God caused the hardening of Pharaoh's heart or not - I think that this does not need to be an area of dispute between Calvinists and Catholics. As long as we understand what we mean when we say that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart," I dont think that there is a problem.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that we actually mean the same thing, and that people are simply balking at "Calvinist-sounding" language. But this is not the case. When Calvinists speak of "secondary causes," it is not St. Thomas's systematic usage; rather, it is an incoherent and inconsistent use of the term. It appears that you have mistakenly concluded from the use of the same terms that Calvinists intend the same concepts. In fact, Calvinism results from a bizarre and unnecessary physical belief that sovereignty entails force, so that unless a will is actually forced to choose a certain way, God can't make sure that what He wills will actually happen. It completely misconceives the nature of God's being and transcendence, making Him just another natural agent among many who acts like Aristotle's Prime Mover. But this is an inevitable error of a voluntarist concept of salvation (salvation is a pure act of will, belief in this case) without accounting for its natural aspects.
My point was that IF we are going to have this controversy, it should not break down across Catholic/Protestant lines. There are differences between the schools of thought, such as between Molinism and Thomism. The schools do not constitute seperate churches and should not be a church-dividing issue.
What Dave is delineating here are the boundaries within which Christian difference on this subject should take place. One of the boundary lines is that God cannot positively ordain evil. Calvinism transgresses that boundary and is therefore unacceptable. The other boundary line is that creatures must be dependent beings, so that their power of free will must be included within the overall sphere of God's transcendent causation. Arminians appear to violate this by making salvation purely an act of will in response to an offer, without accounting for God's immanent presence in creation and the need for the Sacraments. They are mirror images of the same problem, localizing salvation on the human act of will rather than its origin in the metaphysical work of the Incarnation.
Arminians and Calvinists lack this common basis in Tradition that Catholics share. Consequently, the Thomist/Molinist debate is entirely unlike the Arminian/Calvinist debate, in that Thomists and Molinists are speaking of a metaphysical reality, while Arminians and Calvinists are simply describing an act of will. That's exactly why Catholics can disagree about the particular metaphysical explanation (and even various Thomist and Molinist schools disagree within their own cam
...camps, and transcendental Thomists appear to have different theories altogether; see, e.g., David Burrell, following Bernard Lonergan), while yet retaining an overall agreement on what it is that they are attempting to describe.
Before even getting to the issue of grace, one needs to deal with the underlying metaphysical framework (the Incarnation, Sacraments, etc.) in which salvation is being described. Once that is analyzed, it becomes clear that Calvinists and Arminians aren't even in the same theological ballpark, despite using terms that sound identical.
If so, this seems odd to me - if God had planned all along not to destroy those cities, and yet told Abraham that He would, then wouldn't this be a sort of falsehood on God's behalf? After all, He said that He *would* destroy the citries, and yet His eternal unchanging will must have always been that He wouldn't (since He didn't)
Not if this was an accommodation to human ways of reasoning. Note that God can't actually express what he is "planning" in a way that is even remotely comprehensible to humans; we can have absolutely no understanding of what it is to exist timelessly a se in relation to a timebound creation. Thus, the expression to Abraham and to Jonah in the destruction of Nineveh, by the very use of the term "plan" or "intend," is indicating the mysterious mode of interaction by which God "takes into account" His creation. Obviously, this can't be taken to refer literally and univocally to what God was thinking, which would violate God's immutability in and of itself. This would only be a "lie" on God's part if one took what God was saying in a hyper-literal sense, but that would lead to absurd consequences. We know obviously that when God is describing His "plans," He isn't speaking univocally, but rather analogically. He is interacting with creatures on their own basis to give us some sort of cognitive hook within our experience, so that, for example, if we are planning to do something but haven't yet done it, then the thing might or might not happen. In God, there is no such gap between planning and doing, but the use of this sort of language points to the basic truth of faith that God somehow mysteriously "responds" to us even though He always remains impassible.
It is analogous to the truth of faith we affirm when we say that "God suffered impassibly" in the Passion. We affirm that He truly did share in our suffering while simultaneously recognizing that God is immune to suffering by His divine nature. Just as the hypostatic union is an incomprehensible mystery, so is God's real interaction with His creation. In both cases, we recognize that we are affirming truths beyond our understanding.
Hi Neo,
I think you're being way too analytical. This is a time long before philosophy and any sort of systematized theology. God is portrayed anthropomorphically (I would say by necessity) so that this band of nomads (the ancient Hebrews and whatever Abraham was) could understand Him at all.
He can't change His mind. But He can choose to involve His followers, on a level they can understand. The noition that He can be "persuaded" by a creature is not so much to indicate that He could actually change, as it is to demonstrate His mercy and lovingkindness.
Brilliant as always, Jonathan. Thanks! Hope you enjoyed your (business trip?) in Hawaii. 
I'm on my way tomorrow to a five-day mini-trip to northern Michigan. Can't wait. My wife and I are "fall fanatics."
That trip was only business for the missus; all vacation for me. Happy leaf-peeping!
Thank you Jonathan and Dave - you've certainly given me some things to think about. But I still wonder, if there was never any question of God destroying those cities, why He would present such events as possibilities at all?
I don't see what God is trying to communicate through this. He's not saying, "I should, but I won't",to show His mercy. He's saying I *will*, and waiting for Abraham to (even if only apparently) dissuade Him.
This is definitely a subject I shall have to sit down, pray about, and then think about...
Thank you all the same, and have a lovely Autumnal excursion Dave,
Grace and Peace be with you,
Peter
Peter,
Think of it this way. What is written in the old is a prefigure of the new. Did God intend to sacrifice Abraham's only son? Did He change His mind? Or, was He communicating something to us?
Did God intend to destroy the city? I believe he did, yet He spared it on account of one man's righteousness.
Just as with all sinners God is going to give a just reward, except for one man's righteousness.
God could say to me today: You are destined for eternal torment, knowing that tomorrow I will turn to Him in repentance changing God's mind because of one man's righteousness.
Back to Abraham: God could have said to Abraham, don't worry I have a man in the city, just go on your way. Yet, He chose to communicate something to him in terms that he could understand and in which we would come to understand.
I hope I'm making sense.
This is definitely a subject I shall have to sit down, pray about, and then think about...
As more to ponder, you could also consider why it is that God uses the metaphor of divorcing Israel and marrying someone new, when He clearly does not sanction divorce and remarriage. It seems to me that this might be the same sort of accommodation. I've had more than one Protestant say in response to the Catholic teaching on divorce that God would not have used this image if divorce and remarriage were not permissible. But that carries in certain assumptions about how these statements from God should rightly be taken, which is built on a theology of how God communicates with man. Thus, this seems like a good occasion to give some thought to your beliefs on that subject.
"Interestingly, he cites the crucifixion as evidence of men used as secondary agents, but seems to overlook the fact that God used them to blaspheme, beat, and ultimately kill His only begotten Son.
Who's overlooking anything? He worked around their evil actions. He didn't cause them. Otherwise we have the absurd, outrageous scenario of God positively ordaining blasphemy of Himself. He ordained that the crucifixion was to be His plan for saving mankind, but not the sinful acts entailed therein."
This of course ignores the fact that God made it that Jesus *had* to die and *had* to be tortured to save everyone. What if a good Samaritan had rescued Jesus, killed the centurions, taken Jesus off the cross, and healed him? Would we all them be damned because of an obviously good act?
guaranteed loan online guaranteed loan online guaranteed loan online. car jersey loan new trenton car jersey loan new trenton car jersey loan new trenton.
I am not Catholic, and admit that I have recently been persuaded by Dr. R.C. Sproul of the truth of the Augustinian or Calvinistic view of predestination, yet I wholeheartedly applaud this article. R.C. Sproul also emphatically states that God is never the author of evil. I was recently emailed by a member of the youth group from our church who came across another article by Colin Smith on the Alpha and Omega website, and even he recognized the problems with Smith's arguments. We joked about his comments critiquing Dr. Norman Geisler's work, particularly as it relates to the idea of God using the actions of man rather than specifically directing every single event that occurs, including causing sin and evil. He asked the question "I wonder if Dr. Geisler really grasps the level of control that God has to have over the universe to be sure that prophecy is fulfilled precisely as He intends?" He then goes on to describe the difficulty involved in such a chess game, since a player may get distracted, forget the strategy, or have to go to the bathroom. Both the youth and I felt pretty strongly that the Amighty God of the Universe would not get distracted, forget the strategy, or have to go to the bathroom! Not only do Smith's comments diminish God, but they are utterly preposterous. And, while we joked about it, I find it deadly serious that comments such as these were discovered by a youth earnestly seeking the truth. I'm only grateful that the young man was smart enough to see through it and bring it to my attention so we could discuss it.
Commenting by HaloScan
