Flowers responds to White on Compatibilistic Sin Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading... Related
I think Flowers missed the point White was making regarding the rape of a child being decreed because God has a purpose, that if there was no purpose, it would not have been decreed to be done and, therefore, would not have happened.
There is evil purpose and there is good purpose, but the former, it seems to me, Flowers understood White to be taking it only from earthly perspective, that is, the evil intentions of the rapist. Whereas, I think White meant purpose to mean the eternal purposes of God, that is, ultimate purpose; the rape occurred because God had an ultimate purpose, which I assume is meant to give God glory.
That said, White is still impugning God’s character and his argument associating the rape with a good purpose only makes the rape to be, ultimately, a good (for God alone, it seems, and not necessarily for anyone else involved in event of the rape).
One thing White may say in his defense of God’s decree the evil event, is that the child may turn to Christ and be saved, thus redeeming the evil occurrence. However, there is the possibility that the occurrence may very well also harden the child’s heart against God and she winds up in hell.
As Flowers says, and I agree, God is the redeemer of evil (which renders the evil actual evil), not the decreer of evil (which renders evil as an apparent evil).
There goes, in my opinion, the “good purpose,” which White claims makes necessary the aforementioned divine decree.
I was only able to listen up to marker 11:45.