# Calvinism and the Problem Of Evil



## Toasty

This looks like a good book: http://wipfandstock.com/calvinism-and-the-problem-of-evil.html#contributor

The book challenges the idea that Calvinism makes the problem of evil insoluble. The contributors are the following: David E. Alexander, James N. Anderson, James E. Bruce, Anthony Bryson, Christopher Green, Matthew J. Hart, Paul Helm, Daniel M. Johnson, Hugh J. McCann, Alexander R. Pruss, Greg Welty, and Heath White.


----------



## Taylor

Toasty said:


> ...Calvinism makes the problem of evil insoluble.



Whoever believes this in the first place knows absolutely nothing of Reformed theology.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

The book is also available in a Kindle version:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K0T53JI/

The two entries by Paul Helm and James Anderson are worth the price alone.


----------



## Stope

Is there a primer on this subject I can read free online anywhere? 

As of now I see man is responsible, but I also see God is sovereign and plans all actions. But I also see its impossible for God to sin, but Im confused in that if he introduced the first sin it did NOT Happen by accident and so I cant reconcile the facts...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Stope said:


> Is there a primer on this subject I can read free online anywhere?
> 
> As of now I see man is responsible, but I also see God is sovereign and plans all actions. But I also see its impossible for God to sin, but Im confused in that if he introduced the first sin it did NOT Happen by accident and so I cant reconcile the facts...



See:
https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=problem+of+evil&format=All


----------



## KeithW

Dr. James White has a webcast called The Dividing Line. Last month he showed video clips from two debates, both on the problem of evil.

One clip was from a debate between an atheist and an Arminian. The topic was theodicy - divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The atheist question was, if God exists how can He know in advance a baby will die of cancer if this God is good and loving? The Arminian was unable to directly answer the question, because his system cannot answer the question. The atheist recognized this and was persistent in pointing out the Arminian was not answering the question but skirting around it.

The second clip was from a debate between the same atheist and a Calvinist (James White). The atheist asked the same question. Every response the White gave always first stated who God is, and in that context what the answer is. The atheist recognized there were no holes in the response, lost steam in his pursuit of this specific topic, and had to give up.

I found the contrast very instructive.

Dividing Line Program - "How Theology Determines Apologetics, and So Much More"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxkYOCJ0pM0
36:00 to about 60:00

This starts in the middle of something Dr. White was responding to, the difference between evidentialists (we can only know God by observation in the world) and presuppositionalists (we start with what God says in His Word). In the 1st debate video clip the atheist is David Silverman (really dark hair, white shirt, no jacket), and the Arminian is Dr. Frank Turek (dark suit jacket). In the 2nd debate clip the atheist is still David Silverman, but the Calvinist is Dr. James White. The starting point I give provides enough of an introduction to follow the context of the video clips.


----------



## Toasty

> The topic was theodicy - divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The atheist question was, if God exists how can He know in advance a baby will die of cancer if this God is good and loving?



Before there was sin in the world, there was no such thing as cancer. Before there was sin, there was no death, disease, and sickness. Cancer exists because man fell into sin.

Just because God is good and loving does not mean that He cannot ordain whatsoever comes to pass including man falling into sin. Just because God is good and loving does not mean that He has to ensure that everyone is happy and healthy with no possibility of something going wrong. God's ultimate purpose is not to make man as happy as possible. God's ultimate purpose is to show His glory.

God has a good reason why He ordains what He ordains. John chapter 9 teaches that the man was born blind so that the works of God can be displayed in Him. 

God's good reason for allowing sin and suffering have to do with the display of His glory. God wants to show His glory and all of His attributes.


----------



## Toasty

Stope said:


> Is there a primer on this subject I can read free online anywhere?
> 
> As of now I see man is responsible, but I also see God is sovereign and plans all actions. But I also see its impossible for God to sin, but Im confused in that if he introduced the first sin it did NOT Happen by accident and so I cant reconcile the facts...



It would be helpful to read up on the sovereignty of God. 

A.W. Pink's Attributes of God
http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/3913/7643/2884/aogo.pdf

A.W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God
http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/index.html

Here is a book that deals with suffering and the sovereignty of God:
http://document.desiringgod.org/suffering-and-the-sovereignty-of-god-en.pdf?1439242069


----------



## Toasty

KeithW said:


> Dr. James White has a webcast called The Dividing Line. Last month he showed video clips from two debates, both on the problem of evil.
> 
> One clip was from a debate between an atheist and an Arminian. The topic was theodicy - divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The atheist question was, if God exists how can He know in advance a baby will die of cancer if this God is good and loving? The Arminian was unable to directly answer the question, because his system cannot answer the question. The atheist recognized this and was persistent in pointing out the Arminian was not answering the question but skirting around it.
> 
> The second clip was from a debate between the same atheist and a Calvinist (James White). The atheist asked the same question. Every response the White gave always first stated who God is, and in that context what the answer is. The atheist recognized there were no holes in the response, lost steam in his pursuit of this specific topic, and had to give up.
> 
> I found the contrast very instructive.
> 
> Dividing Line Program - "How Theology Determines Apologetics, and So Much More"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxkYOCJ0pM0
> 36:00 to about 60:00
> 
> This starts in the middle of something Dr. White was responding to, the difference between evidentialists (we can only know God by observation in the world) and presuppositionalists (we start with what God says in His Word). In the 1st debate video clip the atheist is David Silverman (really dark hair, white shirt, no jacket), and the Arminian is Dr. Frank Turek (dark suit jacket). In the 2nd debate clip the atheist is still David Silverman, but the Calvinist is Dr. James White. The starting point I give provides enough of an introduction to follow the context of the video clips.



In that video clip, I find it interesting that Frank Turek says that we are not here to talk about the Bible. The Bible is the ultimate authority and it applies to every area of life. The Bible has answers to Silverman's objections. Why not use it?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Toasty said:


> In that video clip, I find it interesting that Frank Turek says that we are not here to talk about the Bible. The Bible is the ultimate authority and it applies to every area of life. The Bible has answers to Silverman's objections. Why not use it?


Well if you are taking an evidentialist approach, that is, evil exists, therefore there is good, therefore there is God, then relying upon Scripture seems to defeat the evidentialist's approach. Hence the debacle of his debate performance. Sigh.


----------



## Toasty

KeithW said:


> Dr. James White has a webcast called The Dividing Line. Last month he showed video clips from two debates, both on the problem of evil.
> 
> One clip was from a debate between an atheist and an Arminian. The topic was theodicy - divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The atheist question was, if God exists how can He know in advance a baby will die of cancer if this God is good and loving? The Arminian was unable to directly answer the question, because his system cannot answer the question. The atheist recognized this and was persistent in pointing out the Arminian was not answering the question but skirting around it.
> 
> The second clip was from a debate between the same atheist and a Calvinist (James White). The atheist asked the same question. Every response the White gave always first stated who God is, and in that context what the answer is. The atheist recognized there were no holes in the response, lost steam in his pursuit of this specific topic, and had to give up.
> 
> I found the contrast very instructive.
> 
> Dividing Line Program - "How Theology Determines Apologetics, and So Much More"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxkYOCJ0pM0
> 36:00 to about 60:00
> 
> This starts in the middle of something Dr. White was responding to, the difference between evidentialists (we can only know God by observation in the world) and presuppositionalists (we start with what God says in His Word). In the 1st debate video clip the atheist is David Silverman (really dark hair, white shirt, no jacket), and the Arminian is Dr. Frank Turek (dark suit jacket). In the 2nd debate clip the atheist is still David Silverman, but the Calvinist is Dr. James White. The starting point I give provides enough of an introduction to follow the context of the video clips.



James White said that God decreed that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit. Why do you think Silverman did not ask, "If God decreed it, then how was Adam responsible?"


----------



## Bill The Baptist

KeithW said:


> Dr. James White has a webcast called The Dividing Line. Last month he showed video clips from two debates, both on the problem of evil.
> 
> One clip was from a debate between an atheist and an Arminian. The topic was theodicy - divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The atheist question was, if God exists how can He know in advance a baby will die of cancer if this God is good and loving? The Arminian was unable to directly answer the question, because his system cannot answer the question. The atheist recognized this and was persistent in pointing out the Arminian was not answering the question but skirting around it.
> 
> The second clip was from a debate between the same atheist and a Calvinist (James White). The atheist asked the same question. Every response the White gave always first stated who God is, and in that context what the answer is. The atheist recognized there were no holes in the response, lost steam in his pursuit of this specific topic, and had to give up.
> 
> I found the contrast very instructive.



The fact that the Arminian is unable to provide a cogent response does not neccesarily indicate a flaw in Arminianism so much as it does a flaw in the reasoning abilities of the particular Arminian in question. I only mention this because Dr. White tends to use this same argumentation when dealing with textual issues. I am not defending Arminianism, I am just not a fan of fallacious argumentation.


----------



## MW

Bill The Baptist said:


> The fact that the Arminian is unable to provide a cogent response does not neccesarily indicate a flaw in Arminianism so much as it does a flaw in the reasoning abilities of the particular Arminian in question.



I think it demonstrates a flaw in the Arminian view. According to that view there can be foreknowledge of things as future which have not been determined as future. Things are able to spring into existence without God's determination and ordination of them. Ergo evil just springs into existence. That is a problem; and since it exists outside the ordained power of God, it creates a dualism for which Christianity provides no answer. The biblical revelation of grace in Christ insists that there is one God who is above all and through all and in all.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

MW said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Arminian is unable to provide a cogent response does not neccesarily indicate a flaw in Arminianism so much as it does a flaw in the reasoning abilities of the particular Arminian in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it demonstrates a flaw in the Arminian view. According to that view there can be foreknowledge of things as future which have not been determined as future. Things are able to spring into existence without God's determination and ordination of them. Ergo evil just springs into existence. That is a problem; and since it exists outside the ordained power of God, it creates a dualism for which Christianity provides no answer. The biblical revelation of grace in Christ insists that there is one God who is above all and through all and in all.
Click to expand...


I agree there is a flaw. However I have read countless Arminian theodicies, many of which were thoughtful and compelling, even if they were perhaps incorrect in their conclusions. My point was simply that the idea that Arminians are completely unable to give any sort of cogent response to the problem of evil on the basis of one Arminian's inability to do so is just not a good argument. It is not altogether unlike the argument that because Riplinger et al. are incapable of giving a cogent defense of the KJV, then the KJV is indefensible.


----------



## MW

Bill The Baptist said:


> My point was simply that the idea that Arminians are completely unable to give any sort of cogent response to the problem of evil on the basis of one Arminian's inability to do so is just not a good argument. It is not altogether unlike the argument that because Riplinger et al. are incapable of giving a cogent defense of the KJV, then the KJV is indefensible.



Riplinger isn't defending the AV, but a magical book which does not exist. The two cases are unequal.

Arminianism has no credible theodicy. One simply cannot give a theistic account of evil where it is able to spring up outside of God's determination of it. The book of Job would look very different on Arminian principles.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

MW said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was simply that the idea that Arminians are completely unable to give any sort of cogent response to the problem of evil on the basis of one Arminian's inability to do so is just not a good argument. It is not altogether unlike the argument that because Riplinger et al. are incapable of giving a cogent defense of the KJV, then the KJV is indefensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riplinger isn't defending the AV, but a magical book which does not exist. The two cases are unequal.
> 
> Arminianism has no credible theodicy. One simply cannot give a theistic account of evil where it is able to spring up outside of God's determination of it. The book of Job would look very different on Arminian principles.
Click to expand...


I am not disagreeing with your points, however Dr. White's argument seemed to be based more on his inability to respond than to any actual Arminian argument. If we are going to refute Arminianism, let's engage the arguments rather than critiquing the debating abilities of its proponents.


----------



## Toasty

MW said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Arminian is unable to provide a cogent response does not neccesarily indicate a flaw in Arminianism so much as it does a flaw in the reasoning abilities of the particular Arminian in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it demonstrates a flaw in the Arminian view. According to that view there can be foreknowledge of things as future which have not been determined as future. Things are able to spring into existence without God's determination and ordination of them. Ergo evil just springs into existence. That is a problem; and since it exists outside the ordained power of God, it creates a dualism for which Christianity provides no answer. The biblical revelation of grace in Christ insists that there is one God who is above all and through all and in all.
Click to expand...


Can the Arminian say something like this? "No can legitimately find fault with God because God has the right to decide what He allows or does not allow."


----------



## Djenks

Bill The Baptist said:


> KeithW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. James White has a webcast called The Dividing Line. Last month he showed video clips from two debates, both on the problem of evil.
> 
> One clip was from a debate between an atheist and an Arminian. The topic was theodicy - divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The atheist question was, if God exists how can He know in advance a baby will die of cancer if this God is good and loving? The Arminian was unable to directly answer the question, because his system cannot answer the question. The atheist recognized this and was persistent in pointing out the Arminian was not answering the question but skirting around it.
> 
> The second clip was from a debate between the same atheist and a Calvinist (James White). The atheist asked the same question. Every response the White gave always first stated who God is, and in that context what the answer is. The atheist recognized there were no holes in the response, lost steam in his pursuit of this specific topic, and had to give up.
> 
> I found the contrast very instructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Arminian is unable to provide a cogent response does not neccesarily indicate a flaw in Arminianism so much as it does a flaw in the reasoning abilities of the particular Arminian in question. I only mention this because Dr. White tends to use this same argumentation when dealing with textual issues. I am not defending Arminianism, I am just not a fan of fallacious argumentation.
Click to expand...



Guess I'm not following this argument. When Dr. White critiques the Arminian debating style isn't the point of his argument that the Arminian does not have an argument to rebuke? If you can't take scripture and follow context and meaning verse by verse, without bringing weak arguments from sources that have nothing to do with the subject, it makes the argument invalid. By showing that the Arminian can't postulate a logical thoughtful explanation of scripture, he show that the conclusions of that process can not be taken as truth. This not only wins debates, but allows the listener to know which side is being consistent and therefore which argument they should continue to study.


----------



## KeithW

Dan, you and I might think that the purpose of debate would be that the best people from both sides of an issue would get together in moderated public debate to debate that issue. If it is the best both sides have to offer then both people should have equal arguing ability and the outcome of the debate is simply based on the ability of the position to stand on its own, not on the ability of the individual debaters. Unfortunately not all debates are between the best both sides have to offer. I agree with Bill The Baptist on this point.



Bill The Baptist said:


> I am not disagreeing with your [MW's] points, however Dr. White's argument seemed to be based more on his inability to respond than to any actual Arminian argument. If we are going to refute Arminianism, let's engage the arguments rather than critiquing the debating abilities of its proponents.



I have watched a few of White's debates and programs. He always critiques his debates afterwards. He will plainly distinguish between whether the other side loses a point based on whether the position itself cannot win that point or whether the debater himself argued poorly. Whether White debates Roman Catholics, Muslims, atheists, Arminians, etc., he will always mention whether or not the people he debates are among the best the other side has to offer. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> It is not altogether unlike the argument that because Riplinger et al. are incapable of giving a cogent defense of the KJV, then the KJV is indefensible.



Bill The Baptist in saying "Riplinger et al." is referring to everyone who defends "the KJV" position. But this argument makes no sense. White himself acknowledges there are different KJV positions: KJV onlyism, KJV preferred, TR only, Byzantine only, etc. He explains this both in his book and repeatedly on his webcast.

The example Bill The Baptist mentions here is White, Riplinger, and "the KJV". Here is the interesting thing about the confluence of these three items. White and Riplinger have never had a moderated public debate. Years ago Riplinger wrote a book promoting KJV Onlyism. She was on a Christian radio talk show promoting the book. White later came on to the same radio show (in studio) to present a response against Riplinger's argumentation in the book. Riplinger called in to the show and could not even defend her own arguments (what she wrote in her own book). To the audience she made a fool of herself.


----------



## Dachaser

And even more importantly, The Theology of the Bible itself concerning this issue...


----------



## MW

Toasty said:


> Can the Arminian say something like this? "No can legitimately find fault with God because God has the right to decide what He allows or does not allow."



Something "future" that is permitted to happen must be "determined permission," and that is what Calvinism asserts. By permitting something that is future God has determined its futurity; or, using the words in your question, God has "decided to allow it." When the Arminian says that God created the world foreknowing all that would come to pass, he is effectively saying God has determined the futurity of things, including evil. The problem is, he won't accept this conclusion, and opts for what is called "bare" or "idle permission;" and he will move towards middle knowledge or open theism to try to explain how the permission is "bare" or "idle."


----------



## Stope

Can an Armenian say something like this:

"Even if sin is not a "thing", there was still the possibility for a person to, by determined permission, act out in this sin/lack of a "thing". In other words, God did not create "sin", but he created a world where its possibility existed, doe sthis not somehow make Him the first cause of sin?"


----------



## Toasty

MW said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the Arminian say something like this? "No can legitimately find fault with God because God has the right to decide what He allows or does not allow."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something "future" that is permitted to happen must be "determined permission," and that is what Calvinism asserts. By permitting something that is future God has determined its futurity; or, using the words in your question, God has "decided to allow it." When the Arminian says that God created the world foreknowing all that would come to pass, he is effectively saying God has determined the futurity of things, including evil. The problem is, he won't accept this conclusion, and opts for what is called "bare" or "idle permission;" and he will move towards middle knowledge or open theism to try to explain how the permission is "bare" or "idle."
Click to expand...


Are there different ways that God determines its futurity?


----------



## MW

Stope said:


> Can an Armenian say something like this:
> 
> "Even if sin is not a "thing", there was still the possibility for a person to, by determined permission, act out in this sin/lack of a "thing". In other words, God did not create "sin", but he created a world where its possibility existed, doe sthis not somehow make Him the first cause of sin?"



The idea that God knows the conditions under which something would happen falls under His natural knowledge or simple intelligence; but simply knowing something can happen does not make it future.


----------



## MW

Toasty said:


> Are there different ways that God determines its futurity?



The decree itself is unconditional and must come to pass, but the decree determines not only the action but also the conditions under which the action shall come to pass. In the case of sin, it is the action of a free agent, so it comes to pass freely and contingently so far as the second cause is concerned.


----------



## Stope

MW said:


> Stope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can an Armenian say something like this:
> 
> "Even if sin is not a "thing", there was still the possibility for a person to, by determined permission, act out in this sin/lack of a "thing". In other words, God did not create "sin", but he created a world where its possibility existed, doe sthis not somehow make Him the first cause of sin?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that God knows the conditions under which something would happen falls under His natural knowledge or simple intelligence; but simply knowing something can happen does not make it future.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your help on this.

Its one thing that God knows the conditions under which something would (like, if I were to select a Pepsi or a Coke to accompany my lunch), but since all things came into being through him (like, twice removed, Coke and Pepsi) doesn't it follow that not only does God know the condition of what I might drink, but He actually is somehow the "source" for Pepsi and Coke? Does that make sense?


----------



## Toasty

Stope said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can an Armenian say something like this:
> 
> "Even if sin is not a "thing", there was still the possibility for a person to, by determined permission, act out in this sin/lack of a "thing". In other words, God did not create "sin", but he created a world where its possibility existed, doe sthis not somehow make Him the first cause of sin?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that God knows the conditions under which something would happen falls under His natural knowledge or simple intelligence; but simply knowing something can happen does not make it future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your help on this.
> 
> Its one thing that God knows the conditions under which something would (like, if I were to select a Pepsi or a Coke to accompany my lunch), but since all things came into being through him (like, twice removed, Coke and Pepsi) doesn't it follow that not only does God know the condition of what I might drink, but He actually is somehow the "source" for Pepsi and Coke? Does that make sense?
Click to expand...


God can ordain that you would have the desire to drink it and that nothing would stop you. He also can ordain that you would not change your mind


----------



## Toasty

MW said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there different ways that God determines its futurity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The decree itself is unconditional and must come to pass, but the decree determines not only the action but also the conditions under which the action shall come to pass. In the case of sin, it is the action of a free agent, so it comes to pass freely and contingently so far as the second cause is concerned.
Click to expand...


It comes to pass freely because God ordained that the person would have certain desires and that the person acts according to his desires. Correct?


----------



## MW

Stope said:


> Its one thing that God knows the conditions under which something would (like, if I were to select a Pepsi or a Coke to accompany my lunch), but since all things came into being through him (like, twice removed, Coke and Pepsi) doesn't it follow that not only does God know the condition of what I might drink, but He actually is somehow the "source" for Pepsi and Coke? Does that make sense?



Are you asking whether God does something towards the futurity of the thing? The answer is obviously yes, since we live and move and have our being in God. But at that point we have moved away from the Arminian answer and are now starting to look at the way a Calvinist deals with the fact that God determines the futurity of sinful actions. For Calvinism the answer is that God providentially effects the action according to the nature of second causes, and the sinfulness of the action is the responsibility of the moral agent who enacts it. That being the case, the word "source" is not going to clarify what the Calvinist intends to say.


----------



## MW

Toasty said:


> It comes to pass freely because God ordained that the person would have certain desires and that the person acts according to his desires. Correct?



Yes, that is one way of putting it. It should also be noted that the person does not desire this or that directly because God ordained it. The desire itself has its own cause in the order of things, which means the desire comes under the notice of moral judgments.


----------

