Depending on what you mean, there's no figuring to it, it's simple. Sin happens. God has the exclusive and ultimate authority to prevent it. He doesn't in all cases. Therefore He allows it. Now, if you mean why did God order the universe to include sin for men, that is much more difficult to say. As I said in my post, perhaps one reason is that we can so much better understand our need for Him and His love for us. But of course, far be it from me to declare why.
But, as for your "case" it seems you have convinced yourself more than those you are trying to convince. Maybe you should start with your more recent Calvinist member, Albion Girl (post #4432); she seems to believe that God made everything, the good -- and the bad.
I have met AG on this thread, and I think her posts have been wonderful and wise. My case was that God is not the author of evil, but He allows things to happen that are evil. AG said that " ... God created all, good and bad and everything in between." Perhaps she got this crazy idea from places like this:
JOHN 1:1-3,10 : 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ... 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
God created sharks. Sometimes, sharks eat people. We say that's "bad". This is very different from any suggestion that God proactively inserts an evil demon or something into someone to make him do something terrible. I will let AG speak for herself on how she sees this distinction.
[on my possibility as to why God allows sin] Maybe you can explain to me first why would the "rejects" depend on, and need Him if they have been "condemned" to hell from all eternity?
You use words like "condemn" because you place a duty on God to love everyone equally, and provide for everyone's salvation, if it his/her choice. I do not see that in the Bible at all. I see a sovereign God, who does not "owe" us anything from the beginning. Those who are not of the elect will not depend on, or experience a genuine need for God.
And you continue to write as if you know what God thinks? Everyone else seems to be doing that. This is why I am skeptical about the Bible. Everyone reads into it what he or she wants. (emphasis added)
You said it, I didn't. :) It doesn't affect my view of the Bible at all whether others have other views of it, or even try to tear it down. I don't think the Bible is right because I, or any other man, or group of men says it is. I say that the Bible is truth regardless of any of our beliefs. Some will hear the truth, some will not. -- I have never relied on my "view" of what God "thinks", in the ether, I rely on what He says, in the scripture.
"AlbionGirl, the Calvinist", that's rather a shock to see in print! Not that I find it in any way unpleasant, just startling in that if you would have suggested a year ago that is where I'd be today I would have said you were crazy. But, being that I took so easily and readily to so much of Calvin's theology, I have to conclude I was probably a crypto-Calvinist for quite a while. I don't see him at all as the caricature men draw of him. I see him as a man who loved God with fervor, who was offended at His suffusion in myriad medieval accretions, who saw the tyrannization (sp?;word?) of the consciences of the faithful as harmful. He wasn't alone, there were some Catholics who were offended as well, but they didn't see the solution to those problems in the same way Calvin did.
I went out to dinner last week with a friend I hadn't connected with in quite a while. We began with a margarita, and any inhibition to speak what was on my mind disappeared almost immediately, as I don't consume alcohol that often, so its effects on me are almost immediate. Anyway, I began to tell him of my trek over to the Calvinist side of the isle, and he burst into a roar of laughter that took him a few minutes to reign in. He's a Buddhist. The laughter was not one of derision or mockery, but one of recognition, it was as if his peal of laughter declared, 'I knew it!'.
He's a well-educated man who has been as good as gold to me since we developed a friendship back in the early 90s. We're a couple of misfit celibates, who nonetheless aren't in the least bit misanthropic.
He says that on balance he's a fan of Calvin, not for religious reasons at all, but for reasons pertaining to the effect of Calvinistic thought on personal industry, capitalism, liberty, etc.
As I discussed with him though, here's my dilemma: I was a Catholic for 50 years, I can't stop making the sign of the Cross when I sit down to eat, when I want to chase away an unworthy thought, if I wanted to. I can't not bow my head when I hear Jesus's name articulated, if I wanted to.
Yesterday was the beginning of Holy Week. That I recognize and love Holy Week will never, ever change. When I was a kid my Mother used to try to get me and my older brother to remain silent during the hours from 12 to 3 on Good Friday. She never believed it was possible to get a 5 year-old and an 8 year-old to remain silent for 3 hours, but she was trying to instill in us a reverence for the Blessed day, and she sure was successful. My brother and I would look at each other with a look that said, 'ok, we're really going to do it this time', then we'd start saying our prayers in Latin, and be struck by how funny sounding mulieribus was, and burst into a muffled snickering. My Mom would say, 'shush', and the sequence would begin anew. These are such precious memories to me, and all of this is in my bones.
On my desktop at home, I have a picture of +Mary of Egypt, an Orthodox saint, whose life, legendary or not, has so many parallels to my own, minus the Saint part, of course, that I find immense comfort in the moral of her story.
I didn't know anything about her until last Friday, when an Orthodox priest, who I became acquainted with last summer when attending Divine Liturgy, included me in an email he had sent out to his Faithful. He has sent me a copy of the Parish Bulletin every week since I attended. He's a pretty smart man, and a very good Shepherd.
So, as you can see, my ecclesial eclecticism has the potential to produce a cacophony that makes it difficult for me to fully assess where I fit in, organizationally speaking. The only thing I do know is that I couldn't remain Roman Catholic, and that I will never return to their fold.
Now, as far as God having created it all, good and bad? I think that's a given, and I liked your shark eats man illustration.
The one doctrine of Calvinism that I have tremendous trouble with though, is his doctrine of Predestination. In particular, the idea of reprobation before the foundation of the world. He seems to have wanted to downplay that himself, as it represents a small part of his Institutes, relatively speaking. I think Calvin's main point, the thing he was driving at the most, is that it is dangerous for man to find or try to find that private place inside himself that secretly believes in the power of his own goodness and righteousness. Ego is the name of that private place. And in that, I'm in full agreement with Calvin. I must also confess that I'm probably frightened of his doctrine because of the death of my youngest brother, and the concomitant implications.
Finally, I'm sorry to have rambled on so, but I do thank you for sparking my ability to do so, and for listening, my friend.
FK to Kosta: Depending on what you mean, there's no figuring to it, it's simple. Sin happens. God has the exclusive and ultimate authority to prevent it. He doesn't in all cases. Therefore He allows it
You recognize that God allows sin but not free will? I would say that sin is a product of the free will. In your case, "sin happens."
You are concerned with free will diminishing God's sovereignty. But, the Apostolic Church has always taught that God remains sovereign, because he weaves our good or evil decisions, all of which are foreknown to Him, into His plan.
Sin without free will is no sin, because it lacks fault, it lacks responsibility, it lacks accountability. In your theology, there is no freedom to sin, and therefore there is no freedom to come to God. We are simply puppets on God's strings. There is no fault to be found in the slave, but in the master.
What I am hearing here is that evil, like good, is a creature of God? Wow!
God created sharks. Sometimes, sharks eat people. We say that's "bad". This is very different from any suggestion that God proactively inserts an evil demon or something into someone to make him do something terrible
Hmmmm, Job comes to mind...and Judges 9:23, and 1 Sam 16:14, and 1 Sam 16:15, and 1 Sam 16:16, and 1 Sam 18:10, and 1 Sam 19:19, and 1 Kings 22:23, and 2 Chron 18:22. (Notice how they are all from the Old testament, by coincidence I am sure).
FK to Kosta: You use words like "condemn" because you place a duty on God to love everyone equally, and provide for everyone's salvation, if it his/her choice. I do not see that in the Bible at all
You must be the only one who does not find that in the Bible. The Bible makes it very clear that God is a Judge. Judges judge, either by pardoning or condemning. Those who are "saved" are saved from all eternity according to your theology, and those who are not saved (i.e. "lost") are, by God's decision (therefore judgment), destined to perdition.
That would strongly suggest to anyone, lawyers notwithstanding :),that those who are "lost" from all eternity have been judged to perdition.
I am not placing blame or crying "foul" but simply stating that, looking at your theology, those who will be lost (i.e. not-saved) have no reason to seek anything from God because none will be given. Their fate has been sealed from all eternity. I am glad you see "justice" in that, because I don't.
Now, I know that AG thinks my theology stinks, but even I can say that God's justice is mercy and not condemnation, and frankly I see no mercy in yourn theology dear friend.
No Sir! The Christian Bible is no truth to a Jew or a Muslim or Hindu or a Buddhist or a Wiccan for that matter -- because he or she does not believe in what it proclaims.
As to what is "Scripture" is entirely dependent on what you are willing to believe. The Koran is no scripture to me, and the Gospels are no Scripture to a Jew, just as the Book of Mormon is no scripture top any Christian.
Kosta to FK: And you continue to write as if you know what God thinks
FK to Kosta: I have never relied on my "view" of what God "thinks", in the ether, I rely on what He says, in the scripture
Really? Funny, isn't it, that what you read God says in the same Scripture is not what other Christians see in it? Unlike you, I trust that the Church has better understanding of the Scripture, bsed on Tradition and collective knowledge. You, on the other hand, trust what you read in it as the truth. So, either way, it all falls down to the common denominator -- that you "know" what God is saying.