click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Taking Calvinism Too Far: R.C. Sproul Jr.’s Evil-Creating Deity
by Paul CopanSeptember 2nd, 2008
245 Comments
In his book Almighty Over All (Baker, 1999), R.C. Sproul Jr. makes some controversial statements—ones that appear to be sub-biblical. What tipped me off to this was hearing a paper presentation at a conference in April in New Orleans. R.C. Sproul Jr. was being quoted, and I shocked at what I heard. Though the paper presentation came from a reliable source (Dr. Ken Keathley of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest), I wanted be like the Bereans of Acts 17 and check out Sproul Jr.’s work myself—especially if I wanted to offer some reflections on this topic.
As I assumed, upon further investigation, Keathley’s assessment was correct: Sproul Jr. has simply taken Calvinism way too far. His father R.C. Sproul Sr., also a Calvinist, has been much more tentative and modest about the question of sin’s starting point; he basically concludes that this is a mysterious matter, stopping well short of attributing the origin of evil to God:
Herein lies the problem. Before a person can commit an act of sin he must first have a desire to perform that act. The Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires. But the presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin because we are sinners. We were born with a sin nature. We are fallen creatures. But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know (Chosen by God [1986], p. 30).
Sproul Sr. allows for a libertarian understanding of free will in Eden, which itself is a departure from Calvinism proper. But let that pass.
Sproul Jr., however, wants to get to the bottom of the matter and weigh in on what he takes to be the source of evil: God! Shocked? I certainly hope so. Sproul Jr. lists the range of possible “suspects” in his third chapter, entitled “Who Dunit?” He lays out and discusses the only five possible alternatives: Adam, Eve, Satan, the environment, and God. God created a good environment (“it was very good”), and Adam, Eve, and Satan were originally created good; so their strongest desire or inclination (which dictates how we will choose, Sproul Jr. claims) must also have been originally good. This, then, means that none of the first four candidates can be the source of sin. The “culprit” (Sproul Jr.’s term) is God himself, who “introduced evil into this world” (p. 51). In fact, God acted according his strongest inclination; he acted on what he most wished to come to pass—as he always does (p. 54).
The reason he wanted Adam and Eve to fall into sin was because of God’s eternal attribute of wrath—and “God is as delighted with his wrath as he is with all of his attributes” (52). So in light of this eternal attribute of wrath, God must create objects of wrath: “What I’ll do is create something worthy of my wrath, something on which I can exhibit the glory of my wrath” (pp. 52-53). Without creating human beings (and let’s include fallen angelic beings here too), he would not have had the opportunity to display his glory in this way. So Sproul Jr. affirms something rather startling: “It was [God’s] desire to make his wrath known. He needed, then, something on which to be wrathful. He needed to have sinful creatures” (p. 57).
Anticipating a rejoinder, Sproul Jr. asks: “Isn’t it impossible for God to do evil?” He acknowledges that God can’t sin. This isn’t much of a consolation, as Sproul Jr. goes on to say: “I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that he created sin” (p. 54). Sproul Jr. doesn’t think he’s crossed any line by saying this. Referring to the Westminster Confession’s definition of sin as “any lack of conformity to or transgression of the law of God,” he says that this doesn’t exclude God’s creating evil. It seems that Sproul Jr. is not only using an argument from silence from the Confession, but he is ignoring an important emphasis in Scripture—that God cannot be the author of evil. Let me go into a bit more detail about some problem areas in Sproul Jr.’s theology.
1. “God can do what he wants.” Sproul Jr. appeals to Romans 9 to justify his point (pp. 53, 56). If God is accused of doing evil, Sproul Jr. gives a rough equivalent of what Paul is saying: “Shut up! He’s God, and he can do what he wants” (p. 56). Yes, God can do what he wants, but what God does (and what he wants) will be good and just and reflecting his love and his holiness. We can’t rightly say, “God can break his promise or lie because ‘he’s God, and he can do what he wants.” No, what sets God apart from us fallen, rationalizing, faithless humans is that he alone is true (Romans 3:4). We’re told that it is “impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18; cp. Titus 1:2).
James 1 doesn’t only tell us that God can’t do evil; it also tells us that every good and perfect gift comes from above; that is, God shouldn’t be accused as being the source of evil. God is intrinsically good and so cannot “create evil.” This harks back to what Jesus says about the nature of God—in contrast to fallen humans, who still seek the good of their children: “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:9-11). In fact, earlier on, God is said to be one who doesn’t simply love those who love him, but he loves the wicked and unrighteous as well, thus showing a perfect love (Mt. 5:48).
2. The Manichean error: Sproul Jr., it seems, has pushed things over the orthodox edge by saying that God is the author or creator of evil. This stands in violation of what 1 Timothy 4:4 tells us: “For everything God created is good.” Of course, Augustine fought against the Manichean heresy, which takes evil as a thing rather than the absence or corruption of goodness, but Sproul Jr. seems to be slipping into some version of Manicheanism.
One side note here: The King James Version can be misleading on this point. The translation sometimes gives the impression that God is the maker or the source of both good and evil: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7); “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lamentations 3:37-38); “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6). This rendering is inaccurate. The word for “evil” (ra’ah) can also be translated “trouble,” “disaster,” or “calamity.”
3. A God in need isn’t a God indeed: It is quite startling to read a staunch Calvinist who says that God needs something outside himself—in this case, sinners on whom to pour his wrath! The Scriptures are full of reminders of God’s self-sufficiency and that he needs nothing outside himself. For instance, “If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains” (Psalm 50:12). Again, “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his adviser? Or who has given him something only to have him pay it back? For all things are from him, by him, and for him. Glory belongs to him forever! Amen” (Rom. 11:34-36).
Orthodox Christianity affirms that God did not need to create. He could have chosen not to create. The doctrine of creation out of nothing affirms that God is not in need of, say, pre-existing matter or of human beings. The triune God is content and joyful within himself. His creation of human beings is the result of God’s gracious choice to extend to others his joy, his love, and his community. Sproul Jr.’s view of God’s needing to create human beings diminishes rather than exalts God. According to Sproul Jr., God couldn’t help but create humans upon whom to pour his wrath. (Keep in mind Sproul Jr.’s insistence that God always acts according to his strongest desire.) If wrath is an attribute that is an eternal and necessary aspect to God, then this means God necessarily had to create; he couldn’t help but create. All of this sounds quite troubling to my mind.
In an attempt at philosophical consistency, Sproul Jr., it seems, has taken his causal determinism to some problematic theological conclusions—a direction his father, apparently, feared to go.
Similar Posts:
- Heresies: Gnosticism – A Divided World
- Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding
- Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone? (Sam Storms)
- Is Arminianism Cooperative Justification?
- Longings and Needs as Reasons for Belief in God
Loading ...
245 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Possibly — but I’m enjoying reading your posts, and your recent ones are quite thought-provoking. I’ll be responding to them very carefully later; they’re worth more than a QuickReply.
Thank you for the time and thought you’re putting into this. God’s Word certainly is worth it!
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
After closely looking at the grammar and your arguments, I can agree with this. This passage teaches exactly what you say above. The problem is that it also does not teach the negation of what I’ve been saying; it simply teaches that those who know or desire God will know or desire His Christ.
So although I admit that I read a little much into it, it seems to me that when you bringing it up as a refutation to my arguments, you also read too much into it.
I admit guilt: I brought this topic up, and it’s pure speculation. St. Paul might call it “empty philosophy”. I apologize; God hasn’t told us HOW we won’t sin in Heaven. So I’ll accept your speculation in the same spirit that I made my speculation, and with just as much willingness to believe the one as I do the other. We’ll just have to wait and see
!
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Many thanks for the discussion!
Like or Dislike:
0
Regarding philosophy, I take it to mean what Alvin Plantinga says that it means—to think hard! This isn’t unbiblical. Blessings
Like or Dislike:
1
Thank you very much and very sincerely for your profound challenge to my thinking. I really had to pray and study to answer this, and I’m very glad I did it. Many here have claimed that culture provides another meaning for the passages they and I cite, but you’re the first one to attempt to actually elucidate the actual meaning rather than simply to claim that it’s there.
Jesus says that because it’s the truth, which He needs to teach and they need to hear. John explicitly says that “they could not believe”, but that doesn’t mean that they should not believe.
Furthermore, I sense that you’re also asking why Christ specified “while you have it” when talking about “the light”. Perhaps you’re reading that to indicate that if they turn from the light long enough, there will come a time when they will be left in the dark specifically BECAUSE they had turned away from the light for so long.
If so, my answer is simple: Christ is answering the crowd’s immediate question, in which they ask how He could claim to be the Messiah and claim to be about to be lifted up, since they knew that the Messiah would remain forever. It seems to me that His answer identifies His own physical presence with “the light”; I believe His point is that the crowd imagined that they could participate in the Messiah’s kingdom without participating in the Messiah; although the kingdom is at hand, if you shun the Messiah you have no part in the kingdom, and for that crowd in particular the Messiah was actually right before them.
I’m not sure if that’s right, but I do feel reasonably sure that Christ’s answer has something to do with the crowd’s question, and therefore must contain some reference to Himself. John elsewhere frequently refers to Christ by the title of “the light”, so it seems not implausible that the same is the case here.
And furthermore, it’s also true that John quotes Isaiah in order to explain their unbelief. If you try to say that their unbelief explained their own unbelief, then why did John quote Isaiah?
I’m not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Clearly God _did_ harden Pharaoh’s heart, so I don’t know how it can matter _why_ He did that.
But it’s more on topic to look at the consequences of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart: He did it, and as a consequence Pharaoh committed more evil. Doesn’t this make God part of the causative chain for this evil? Doesn’t this provide an example of where God clearly DID “create” an evil action, but just as clearly one where the evil action was entirely the fault of Pharaoh?
That touches on my ears a little harsher than I hope you intended.
I think you’re also looking past the purpose of the discussion on this thread, which is not originally about soteriology or predestination (although I’m enjoying discussing that, and I entirely agree that it’s appropriate to discuss), but about God’s purpose for evil, and whether He can be said to create it. The question of why and how evil is present in the world is not the same as the question of why and how Christians are saved.
I spoke on Romans 9 in that context; I spoke not about Pharaoh being predestined to damnation, but rather about him being sustained by God for the purpose of doing an evil that was an intrinsic part of God’s plan. In Acts 2 we also see that God planned the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus — said betrayal and crucifixion being acts of horrifying evil.
That’s fine, but you still are stuck with what Paul DID mean when he talks about predestination. I agree that in both passages the purpose is to point out that God’s will includes both Jews and Gentiles; but in arguing for for that inclusion, St.Paul actually DID describe a God who “arbitrarily” chose some for salvation and some for damnation. (I put “arbitrarily” in scare quotes because the choice is only arbitrary by our standards; God chose people based on good criteria, but not on any criteria within the people themselves. The correct term is not “arbitrarily”, but rather “graciously and mercifully”.)
If he didn’t mean to describe that God, as you claim, why did he do it? Couldn’t he have used any number of other arguments? He could, for example, have simply said that God has thrown open the gates of Heaven, and whosoever will may come. Such a claim is quite fitting with the rest of the Bible (i.e. it’s true).
In other words: you’re right that the reason Paul brought up predestination was to explain that God had a total right to allow whomever He wished, including the Gentiles as a class. But you’re wrong to suppose that predestination has no meaning outside of showing that the Gentiles could be part of God’s plan. Paul wasn’t only talking about predestination because it was useful to his argument; he was talking about it because it is true.
That’s isn’t at all the meaning of the word “predestination”. It doesn’t seem to be a related concept. It’s true, mind you, based on other Biblical texts, but it doesn’t address the question of what predestination means.
I think we agree that God is not a miser. And I think we agree that God has chosen, collectively, all true followers of Christ as the exclusive recipients of His salvation, leaving the rest to the otherwise-inevitable eternal destiny brought on by their sinful nature. Given those points of agreement, how can you accuse me of imputing miserliness to God? We both face as a fact that some will be saved and some will not, and all of this is by the work of God!
Both of us face the same accusation of divine miserliness at the hands of the unbeliever. How is the doctrine of special election (that God picked out specific individuals) any different from the doctrine of generic election (that God picked out general characteristics of people for salvation) in this respect? Keep in mind that the general characteristics must not be in and of themselves praiseworthy, or those people possessing them would be “able to boast”.
Yes, and in 1 Timothy 4:10, Paul says that God is the savior of “all men” (the same Greek), “especially of believers”. If both of these verses are true in the sense you take them here, then why shall we not read this as meaning that no people will go to Hell?
I’m glad you pointed that out. When I first read it I missed the references, and assumed you were talking about John 12. But John 6 is very significant. Jesus is definitely indicating that anyone who truly comes from God will recognise and worship Jesus; your reading is perfectly true, albeit incomplete.
But in this passage He not only says that all who learn from God will come to Christ (v45); He also says that nobody comes to Him unless they learn from God (v44). So everyone who is of God will come to Christ (as you say), but also nobody who is not of God will come to Christ. This, therefore, cannot be limited to ONLY the Jews who thought they were from God; it’s a general statement about everyone, whether or not they claim to be from God. If you think you’re from God but you reject Christ you’re wrong; and if you think you accept Christ but you haven’t learned to do that from God you’re wrong.
And you, as an Arminian: you claim to be following Christ, but you also claim that you didn’t get a gift from God to enable that. You’re wrong as well — I believe you are following Christ because you have a gift from God.
It would be permissible to read verse 44-45 that way, if one assumes that God makes the decision of whom to draw based on a choice of that person. The two verses don’t rule that out. But look at verse 65, in which Christ appears to be interpreting those verses: “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.” The Greek for “has allowed” is literally “has given it”, which may be idiomatic for permission. Many (perhaps most) translations assume this idiom. I personally am inclined to be more permissive (especially in this argument), and to suppose that what’s being given by the Father might not be permission to believe but possibly some earlier referent; but if it is an earlier referent, it’s either “the words I spoke to you”, “the Spirit”, or “life”, and “the words” couldn’t be it because many of the listeners weren’t believing. Both of the remaining choices imply a Calvinist soteriology of regeneration followed by belief.
So in conclusion, one must interpret John 6:65 to mean that only those who God has given SOMETHING will believe, where the something is either permission, life, or the Spirit. Furthermore, this must be seen as a clarifying interpretation of Christ’s words in verses 44-45.
If you wish to prove me wrong, continue as you’ve done, as you’re the first one here to attempt to provide cultural evidence and discussion (thank you for that) rather than vague claims that there might be some. Don’t simply tell me that I’m wrong; show me.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Unfortunate happenings: 1. unfortunate that with reasoning folks are free to form muddleheaded beliefs about scripture 2. unfortunate that you have missed the heart of my arguments and they are many 3. unfortunate because I don’t have the time to clarify all that’s been said. Keep praying and reading. I’ll do the same. Take care
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you — God bless.
To others who have more time… I don’t consider this the last word by any means, but it appears that at the very least, the concept of God as the creator of all, with authority even over evil rebels, is at least arguably true, contrary to the original post. The immediately above argument doesn’t even attempt to dispute this, and the other arguments have disputed it unsuccessfully.
At least, it’s extremely clear that the concept is not heretical.
Like or Dislike:
0
You say “Sproul Sr. allows for a libertarian understanding of free will in Eden, which itself is a departure from Calvinism proper. But let that pass.”
Sprawl says that God is the “culprit” who “introduced evil into this world” and that God did it (i.e. forced Adam and Eve to sin) because “God is as delighted with his wrath as he is with all of his attributes.”
Now, you respond to Sprawl by saying “It seems that Sproul Jr. is not only using an argument from silence from the Confession, but he is ignoring an important emphasis in Scripture—that God cannot be the author of evil.”
Yet what I have quoted of Sprawl above is not different from what I have quoted of you above. You admit that Calvinism doesn’t allow for real free will even in Eden because in Calvinism God decreed that Adam would sin before he ever created Adam. That’s the same thing Sprawl is saying, but he uses real language rather than the normal sophistry you are used to from Calvinist teachers (including yourself). Again, in your other blog post, where you say that the reason people disagree doctrinally is that God wants them to, you are asserting the same thing, that God is the author of evil and of doctrinal confusion (doctrinal confusion is evil, you do believe so, right?).
Like or Dislike:
0
To All,
I’m going to avoid labels and simply make some observations. Sproul’s remark: “I don’t know isa theologically righteous fact. We simply don’t know – something which many have a problem stating in truth and righteousness. Augustine stated: “God permitted sin” and the ‘why’ thereof is left unanswered because the answer is beyond human comprehension.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
God also decrees that God could not sin. Does God lack “real free will” by your analysis?
Vladimir, I agree with you there — Sproul Jr claims he does know, and the reason is God’s wrath; but he’s trying to quote from Romans 9, which only offers God’s wrath as a legitimate possibility, not a certain revelation of the reason. We don’t actually know.
What we do know is that there is truly a good reason, and it’s God’s good reason.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve read Calvin’s Institutes and some of his commentaries a number of years ago as well as St. Augustunes confessions (in Latin). Neither denies free will/free moral agency, but both see a mysterious intertwining of God’s will and man’s will with God’s will the final arbiter in everything. Luther, the former Augustinian monk that he was, was also incline to relate this way (contra Eramus).
Charles Hodge in his 3 vol. Systematic Theology uses repetedly the word “rendered” in his expostions about this and other topics involving free moral agency. Hodge uses the fact that angels, as free moral agents, are “rendered” by God incapable of sinning, yet affirming that it is their own choice and volition that causes them to choose thus.
The fact that the evil angels were once good does not nullify God’s interaction in their decision making processes nor their own accountability/cupability in their decision to defect from the heavenly host. Remember, Lucifer, a created angelic entity, was once good/beautiful, before he fell and was cast out and down.
Hodge further illustrates this fact by the mysterious intertwined nature of prayer and God’s answering prayer.
No, it is not true that the free moral agency and responsibility of both Adam and Eve was somehow lost or non existent either before or after the fall. Neither St. Paul, St. Augustine, Calvin or Luther deny this fact(or).
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Maybe what R.C. Sproul Jr. means is that God didn’t “inject” an evil nature into Adam or Eve but rather withheld grace such that they would not have enough grace to “not have the disposition not to sin”.
Also, if there is a such thing as elect angels and EVERY angel who was NOT elect chose to sin, it’s extremely improbable that they could have easily chosen to “not sin” or else around 50% of the non-elect angels would choose NOT to sin. And plus, protecting some from sinning and not others BEFORE they’d done anything wrong would seem to suggest that God loved some angels more than others but a God with different degrees of love for individual “volitional” beings (such as loving humans more than angels) for no reason would not be a God I could love (I would expect that if he were that kind of God, he’d at least be loving enough NOT TO REVEAL TO VOLITIONAL CREATURES WHO WAS LOVED BETTER; it’s okay that he loves humans and angels better than animals because the animals do not know that they are inferior). Now, if as Edwards suggests in “THe End for Which God Created the World”, God, out of an infinite number of choices, created the universe in such a way that creatures would MOST praise him (which would be the ultimate good), then GOd is exonerated from any of the charges I listed above.
So there is probably no such thing as “elect angels” BEFORE the fall but that after the fall, God confirmed the obedient angels in a disposition such that they would never sin (post-destination). So humans were pre-destined and angels post-destined.
Like or Dislike:
0
In after Calvinists and their “we must have the last word” technique.
In compliments to Calvinism (as you know by the fire I lit while talking to you and Bill last week) how do you explain Isaiah 45:7?
Good writing as always, Paul.
D.
Like or Dislike:
0
Darrin, this is a really old thread, so probably not many people are listening… You might want to move on to a more recent Calvinism thread. Perhaps “the least rational” thread might make sense.
Also, I don’t really understand your post… Particularly the first paragraph. I don’t understand whether you’re speaking as a Calvinist, or challenging the Calvinists.
And someone else posted on Isa 45:7; their correction of the KJV from “I create evil” to “I create calamity” is quite reasonable as far as it goes, but it doesn’t solve the problem of evil in general, since even if you assume that “calamity” excludes moral evil (which is hard to believe, since so much calamity, such as famines, is traced back to evil or negligence), you still have to face the fact that the Bible is at least crediting God with the violence of nature, also known as “the problem of natural evil”.
If your theology isn’t robust enough to handle God being supreme over moral evil, then I don’t see how it can handle natural evil. It makes no sense to me to say that God can “create calamity” without moral agents involved and be blameless, but at the same time God can’t decree evil deeds done by moral agents lest He be guilty of the same evil.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot; the rule we follow is that we must not claim that God is the author of evil, but the meaning of author is an older one, implying the committer of evil. If God created everything, including all infants about to be born, then He is responsible for the birth defects — without evil on His part, but by His design.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t like the theory that “the strongest inclination always wins.” Sometimes it’s a real battle to do the right thing when tempted to do otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0
David: true, that. And Paul wrote about it too; he was even stronger about it, explaining that he usually did things he wanted to NOT do.
I think the answer Paul gave is reasonable as an answer to this problem: as Christians we have not merely many different desires to juggle (which is enough of a problem in itself), but two entirely disjoint natures (hearts). The old sin nature wants itself to be glorified; the new nature wants God to have the glory.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Saved by linusnyman on Thu 25-12-2008 Seminary adventure Saved by eostrom on Sun 21-12-2008 Taking Calvinism Too Far: R.C. Sproul Jr.’s Evil-Creating Deity Saved by Isabel2233 on Thu 18-12-2008 One thing I didn’t learn in seminary: Saved by yoda7890 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Yikes!! I wrote a post defending Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. and it was passed over. It was about this (it was written in November 2008) If God elected angels not to fall and EVERY angel who was non-elect chose to fall, then R.C. Sproul Jr. is right. If the non-elect angels (among which there were millions since there are millions of angels) could have just as easily chosen to stand as to fall and all fell, the probability of this would be exceedingly remote. It would be so illogical that a Calvinist who insists that the angels were elected BEFOREHAND should also accept at least the possibility that God withheld enough grace from the non-elect angels as to make their fall inevitable.
Somebody please respond to this. I need some insight on this.
Matthew Swartz, 38, from Walnut Creek, California (about 20 miles northeast of San Francisco)
Like or Dislike:
0
Since when is error taking Calvinism too far. RC Jr. is wrong, but it is not Calvinism. Calvin does not agree with RC Jr. If fact, who does agree?
Like or Dislike:
0
Does it surprise you? Did he form those ideas on his own, or maybe it came from years of sitting in private conversation with his father? Didn’t Sproul Sr. even confess doubts in Calvinism?
What makes Calvinism more special than any other Christian doctrine? Don’t tell me because it’s the only one based in rightly dividing the Bible. Sproul is indicative of a lot of other people like him.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul, in this article you toss around the word or concept of evil as if it is absolute. yes, you can say there is objective evil, but only within the broader context of God’s purposive will (both decretive and preceptive) for creation. evil has no being. people always have a hard time defining evil because its not tangible (though it’s results are). most people call it a ‘force’ which might be the best we can do. but however you define it, evil is an affect and God (if he is indeed sovereign), is the cause. a man can conceive of a monster without being one. God can conceive of evil without being evil.
you say-
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7); “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lamentations 3:37-38); “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6). This rendering is inaccurate. The word for “evil” (ra’ah) can also be translated “trouble,” “disaster,” or “calamity.”
you haven’t really solved anything here. even if you translate ra’ah as ‘troubled’ or ‘disaster’ you still have a problem. is God troubled? or distressed?
some use the anology of cold/heat. as coldness is simply the absence of heat so evil is the absence of goodness (God’s goodness, there’s no such thing as ‘generic’ goodness).
it is appropriate to say that God is offended by evil. but God cannot somehow be overwhelmingly or ‘absolutely’ offended by it…precisely because it has no being.
the result of evil is a corrupted created order so it’s paradoxical to say God ‘created’ evil. but that’s probably the easiest way to put it.
i think the sharpest question to ask is not “can God create evil?” but “why did he create it?” the best answer i have found is itself shrouded in mystery-”For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (Romans 8:20-21)
we shouldn’t be afraid of saying God causes evil as long as we’re clear by what we mean by evil. if one is tempted to ask “if God causes evil, then why does he hold us accountable?’ i would (with sympathy) direct them to Romans 3:5-7.
“But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.”
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] but Sproul Jr. seems to be slipping into some version of Manicheanism. Parchment and Pen ; Parchment and Pen Taking Calvinism Too Far: R.C. Sproul Jr.?s Evil-Creating Deity ; 5/10/09 __________________ John 3:16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
The apple does not fall far from the tree. Any form of Calvinism is over the line as I see it.
3 This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, (D) 4 who wants everyone (E) to be saved (F) and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (G)
5 For there is one God (H)
and one mediator (I) between God and man,
a man, (J) Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself—a ransom for all, (K)
a testimony at the proper time.
While Jr. is apparently more extreme than Sr. I would suggest both are out of the main stream of Conservative Evangelical Christianity.
To posit that God can go against his desire to save all suggest that the doctrine of a selected few attacks God’s Holiness.
Gordon
Like or Dislike:
0
Any level of Calvinism is taking Calvinism too far! The only good Calvinist is a zero point Calvinist.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ooooooh! Them is fightin’ words!
Like or Dislike:
0
Why when I say things like that everyone goes off on me? But others say it more explicitly and no one jumps on them.
Like or Dislike:
0
Many Evangelicals and others allow the Calvinist to bully their way over truth and sensibility. I stopped playing games with them a while back and now I just flat out call it heresy. I don’t care what the big boys think or the little ones either. Take a stand and stand. They do it and so should anyone that is not a Calvinist do it too, take a stand and stand. None Calvinist are relegated to the trash heap by Calvinist over any infraction against their erring theology. Strong words you bet. In love yes because I don’t have any hate in my heart toward one person, but dislike for their false theology is not hate, it is the right approach to defending the truth.
I don’t have a problem with a person being a Calvinist, but I have a serious problem with those who, out of a sense of superiority, deal with other believers as if they are second class and this goes on infinitum in real life and on blogs. There are godly, sensible Christians who are Calvinist who do not approved of the “jerks” in their system, who give them a bad name, in spite of their false doctrine. However, because of the “jerks” and the issues of their doctrine I started long ago to take a different approach. They are relentless and you will not win with them who are cold hearted, hateful and have creative ways of belittling anyone not like them, so take a stand and stand, don’t back down from your conviction and truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
Gordon, you might want to make a repost — post #127 seems to be calling ALL Calvinists heretics, but in it you clearly and rightly condemn all people who “deal with believers as though they were second class citizens.”
I think I understand what you were trying to say: that people who “bully their way over truth” are heretics (I would actually call the schismatics); but given the context (the hate-filled post directly above) you need to be careful lest you be taken to fall into the same trap you’re condemning.
Like or Dislike:
0
WT,
Calvinist must understand that they are their own worst enemies. The attack dog mentality they employ on other believers is real and even this blog is evidence of the widening divide it brings to the table of Biblical Discussion.
Gordon
Like or Dislike:
0
Its not the attack dog mentality that is their problem, Gordan. Take that away and the problem still remains. Or, in other words, they will always have an inevitable relapse into attack dog mode. Why? Because the root of the problem is they believe God is the author of evil, and the mere fact of believing that makes them evil. Attacking believers in Christ is merely a symptom of the problem. I have met many Calvinists who say “I’m not like those other Calvinists who cannot rest unless they convince you that God is the author of evil.” But after I ask them a few question on this passage or that, they are in full “I’m going to make you an atheist Christ-hater if it kills me” mode. Their belief that God is the author of evil makes them evil, because you are what you worship. This is what Romans chapter 1 teaches. The Pagans by worshiping beasts became beastial in their behavior. The Calvinist by worshiping a tyrannical demon god author of evil tyrant become evil tyrants!
Like or Dislike:
0
There’s no excuse for the fundamental error you’re making here, rey. Either Calvinists are Christians, and you should address their error as a brother; or they are not Christians, and you should NOT address their error but rather present the Gospel to them.
It is absolutely a disgrace to mix the categories, and either slander your brother in Christ before the world, or to spend time nitpicking on an unbeliever whose REAL need is to be saved from his sin (note: the unbeliever’s problem is NOT bad theology!).
The fact that when you do this you also commit the exact error you condemn is amazing in its blindness.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
“There’s no excuse for the fundamental error you’re making here, rey. Either Calvinists are Christians, and you should address their error as a brother; or they are not Christians, and you should NOT address their error but rather present the Gospel to them.”
How do you propose I present the Gospel to these unbelievers called Calvinists without first showing them that the evil system which they teach is not the gospel? That’s like telling you that you need a new car without first demonstrating that yours simply doesn’t run. You thought you had some wise “gotcha” but you didn’t. I AM PRESENTING THE GOSPEL TO THESE UNBELIEVERS WHEN I CORRECT THEIR ERRORS.
Like or Dislike:
0
rey, if you could indulge me, i’d like to know how you define evil and where you think it comes from in light of the sovereignty of God. its seems like you think that if God causes evil, then that necessitates that He is somehow evil. i fail to see how that is so. God can create something without taking on the nature of his creation. God did not become the heavens and the earth when He brought them into being, nor does he become evil by bringing evil into ‘being’. and i put ‘being’ in quotations because evil has no being unto itself. you could say the nature of evil is ‘anti-being’, anti-creation-, anti-God, etc. now, though it may be difficult to know why God would subject His good creation to evil, an even sharper question is why God would subject His own son to that same futility on the cross. but that’s another subject. God causes evil for a time, but the day will come when God will wipe away all tears from all faces, and thats what the Christian hope is all about
Like or Dislike:
0
Lion Crater, evil is not a thing, a substance or an essance; it is a moral description of an action. It is, as defined by the Bible, “falling short of the mark.” To cause evil is inherently evil. Causing evil is not the same as watching evil occur and doing nothing to stop it. Thus for God to watch another causal agent do evil is not evil in itself. But to determine that the evil will occur and so bring it about, is evil.
regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
“I AM PRESENTING THE GOSPEL TO THESE UNBELIEVERS WHEN I CORRECT THEIR ERRORS.”
rev, you aren’t. I appreciate your desire to teach against heresy; but this is not a matter of heresy, since both sides of this issue concede that God saves regardless of our beliefs on these issues. And this is the important point that you’re missing utterly: we are not saved by having a correct belief about salvation, ANY correct belief; we are saved by partaking in Christ’s death and resurrection. The gospel you are preaching is “another gospel”, and you stand accursed by Paul, just as much as the ultra-Calvinists against whom you correctly are angered.
Like or Dislike:
0
This is not as obvious are you’re trying to make it. Yes, it’s evil to “bring evil about”; but it’s not evil to create things with known evil. Consider an obvious example: an infant with a congenital defect (natural evil). All Bible-believing Christians must accept that God is fully responsible for that defect; He “knit me in my mother’s womb”, and although we weep for what happens, we cannot point anywhere else but at God. God knew what He was doing.
God created the angels with the potential for evil. He created the entire universe with at least the potential of evil at least harming it (by the hand of Satan), if not infecting it (by man’s fall). God knows the future; it’s not tenable to argue that He was taken by surprise. He was at least prepared for the rebellions, and He may have actually planned for them as a natural result of creating the way He did, versus planning for them as a mere possible contingency of creating the way He did.
The interesting thing is that we’re willing to accept His power and provision right now; we know that He numbers every hair on our head and watches over us, and nothing immediately bad happens without His consent (and furthermore, that all the immediately bad things will work together for good); but you somehow assume that He couldn’t possibly do the exact same thing when He created the Universe.
Yes, evil is evil, and God has no part in that. But God will use that evil for good — and He knew He would, and far from being evil by making that plan, God is good for doing it.
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT: ” All Bible-believing Christians must accept that God is fully responsible for that defect;”
No. I, for one, don’t.
Furthermore, your use of the verse misunderstands and misuses the poetic nature of the language. When some one knits, they actively take the yarn and using needles make the fabric. But for the direct knitting action of the knitter, the fabric would not be created. As we know from observation and analysis, God does not actively move the cells into place and break the cells apart, etc. as the new human develops. God has created a process that works independent of His direct involvement. God is not involved except in the general sense that He sustains the universe.
The deformities, etc., are a result of prior and contemporary evil. The entire world groans to be saved, because it is infected and affected by evil; it does not function as intended.
God is not good for bringing evil about; a god who did that would be an evil god. Of course, despite evil Yahweh God can bring about goods. God can always bring good out of any evil that occurs, but God does not cause the evil so that he can bring good out of it. Such an assertion would be contrary to the Biblical narrative and to God’s character as He has revealed it to us.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT, your assertion regarding creating known evils runs afoul of Copan’s argument, without supplying any reasoning or data to support your argument or to oppose his. Copan states, “James 1 doesn’t only tell us that God can’t do evil; it also tells us that every good and perfect gift comes from above; that is, God shouldn’t be accused as being the source of evil. God is intrinsically good and so cannot “create evil.” This harks back to what Jesus says about the nature of God—in contrast to fallen humans, who still seek the good of their children: “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:9-11). In fact, earlier on, God is said to be one who doesn’t simply love those who love him, but he loves the wicked and unrighteous as well, thus showing a perfect love (Mt. 5:48).
2. The Manichean error: Sproul Jr., it seems, has pushed things over the orthodox edge by saying that God is the author or creator of evil. This stands in violation of what 1 Timothy 4:4 tells us: “For everything God created is good.” ”
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
I think most of us realize that even within our own camp or model of theology we have differences. What concerns me are those elements found in many camps that embrace a do or die need to shove a particular doctrine down another brother’s throat.
1. Calvinist, not all, my experience, seems to belittle and talk down to other believers as if they are superior.
2. Tongues: Those, in their own mind and heart that see tongues as real today, can be, found see themselves as if they are superior too.
3. Amillenialst (many reform / Calvinist and many not) because of the theological model can be hateful and ugly.
4. Salvation by water baptism: Here in the south this can be major issues with meaningful conservation with those who hold to this belief.
My point is there are those who have tunnel vision in conversation with other believers in that all they can think, speak and discuss is a particular issue or doctrine they personally believe.
Gordon
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I’m sorry if this has been discussed before, but it’s been a while since I read this thread.
I’m not saying you’re wholly wrong there. We have to be reeeeeallly careful in how we discuss the relationship between God’s will and evil. It’s easy to err on both sides. And I think “God is fully responsible for” has issues. But “God brings good out of the evil we hand to him” doesn’t cut it, either.
Remember, God specifically and intentionally decided that the most evil event in history would occur: The Crucifixion.
That doesn’t mean God took some innocent people and forced them to crucify Jesus; it doesn’t mean he placed that evil into their hearts. In that sense at least, he didn’t bring it about. But he planned that it should happen, and brought it about in some sense.
At the very least, God “planned and intentionally allowed” the Crucifixion, to bring about the greatest good. God can have that kind of relationship to the evil that occurs. Including the suffering, evil, and sickness in our lives.
Be careful that you don’t call him evil for doing so.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum, depends on what you mean by “some” sense.
I would say that the sacrifice of God’s earthly life, of His incarnation, was a response to evil. Furthermore, we must account for the Satan and his role. It is not a stretch to believe that the crucifixion was inevitable given the incarnation and the opposition of Satan to Christ. That does not imply or necessitate that God determined that the crucifixion would happen and was a direct cause of it. To sacrifice oneself for another is not evil, but love.
God did not bring about certain evils in order that Christ would die. In the context of great evil he laid down his life.
God is never a causal agent of evil (a bit redundant, but done for emphasis). Judging, and blinding someone to the nature and results of their evil, such as happened to Pharoah and Judas, or even members of the crowd before Pilate, is not evil but justice. Judging is not a morally culpable act, and so even if it led to the crucifixion, it would not be evil. What God could not do and remain morally innocent is to determine the actions of the people that resulted in the crucifixion, in the killing of an innocent person. So, for example, He could not at creation determine (in the J. Edwards sense of determine) that Judas would betray Christ and remain morally innocent.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
According to Acts 2:23, handing Christ over to the unbelievers was “according to the predeterminate plan and foreknowledge of God.” If that’s not saying that Christ’s crucifixion is according to God’s plan, I don’t see what WOULD say that.
Now, I DEFINITELY agree with you that God was not the direct cause of Christ’s crucifixion. The term “direct cause” should hint that there are some types of causation other than “direct”.
In fact, the Psalm that I cited earlier gives another example: David praises God for making him “fearfully and wonderfully”. You appear to want to read that as pure poetic language, that God didn’t have anything to do with making either David or a disfigured child; but this is what the Bible says, not only for embyology but also for the fall of every sparrow (death — an evil thing!), down to such seemingly irrelevant details as the hairs on your head. Christ not only told us this as a statement of fact, He then used those facts to try to give us reassurance against worries. How could those statement reassure us if God, in fact, was NOT in control of the outcome of those things?
I like how Jugulum puts this; I think he’s right, and I like how he warns against errors on either side.
Like or Dislike:
0
“To sacrifice oneself for another is not evil, but love.”
No, but torturing and killing an innocent man IS evil.
I also agree with Jugulum.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I agree that God is never the causal agent of sin, and I was being careful not to say that he is. (Giving particular examples of what we can’t say.)
I’ll say this: I do not know how to articulate the way that God interacts in history in order to bring about his purposes.
However.
You are correct that the second sentence doesn’t necessarily follow from the first sentence.
But if you are saying effectively, “Maybe the crucifixion wasn’t God’s plan A for the work of Christ in his Incarnation,” you are absolutely, positively, unequivocally, wrong–because of the direct and explicit revelation of God about the crucifixion.
Wm T. already quoted the relevant verse, Acts 2:23. The Crucifixion was why Christ came. God planned that it would happen, and sinners sinfully acted according to God’s predetermined plan and foreknowledge. God didn’t commit evil–like you say, sacrificing yourself isn’t evil. And like I already said, God didn’t put the evil into their hearts; they acted according to the evil that was there.
You might think that I’m saying more than I really am. It’s really difficult to be precise about this, and to be understood. In terms of the mechanics of how this works, we might be closer than you’re thinking.
My point is to stress that the explicit statement of Scripture is that God can plan a great sin, such that people act according to his predetermined plan & foreknowledge. God can choose that an evil event will occur. God is not limited to, “Well, if that’s what’s going to happen, I’ll make the best of it.” “Cause” is tricky. But I suspect that “intentionally allow” is close.
Like or Dislike:
0
Because the Bible uses human language, language that is given to us by God, it uses poetry and metaphor. To say, in poetry, that God knit one together in the womb is to use a metaphor. It does not mean that God was actively involved in the movement of the cells, and the movement of the proteins, etc., within and between the cells. It means that God is, ultimately, the creator of all that is. In a factual, nonmetaphorical description, one would say that God created the processes by which humans and animals reproduce and develop, and once begun those processes carry on themselves without further “outside” assistance.
The same goes for the poetic language in “fearfully and wonderfully made”. What God has done is fearful and wonderful, so no issue with those descriptors. Again, however, “made” is to be understood in a poetic and ultimate sense. God did not make David like one builds a car or makes a painting, with direct intervention and direct movement of the pieces. To fail to use language according to the way in which God has given it and intends it to be used is to fail in understanding Him.
Planning is not equivalent to determinism. Determinism is the belief that a complete description of the system at one time, and of all the laws that govern that system, logically entails a complete description of that system at any future time. Thus, for example, if Judas was determined then it is inevitable that, when he was placed in the particular circumstances that he experienced, he would betray Jesus.
Knowledge of details does not entail determinism. Nor is it correct to state that lack of determinism means that God is not in control or cannot arrive at any result he desires.
The Bible does not state that God creates disfigured people. Evil intervenes and causes disfigurement. If it were not so, then God would be able to call the disfigurement or disability “good and perfect” and not change it when the disfigured or disabled person receives their new body. Jesus healed a man who was blind from birth; that fact implies that the blindness was not perfect or good but a wrong, an evil that needed to be corrected. God did not create him blind.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Interesting example, in your last paragraph.
When Jesus was asked who sinned, so that a particular man was born blind, Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:3)
He was born with a defect so that he could be healed by God. The fact that God had a good purpose for him in particular to be born that way does not mean that his blindness was “good and perfect.” The fact that God ordained Paul’s sufferings does not mean that his sufferings were “good and perfect,” and suitable for him to keep experiencing them after the Resurrection.
You are right that evil agents (or the effects of evil in the world) are the direct cause of defects & suffering & illness.
What I am saying–because the passages I’m citing explicitly say so–is that God (at least sometimes) directly plans that a particular evil will occur. He intentionally allows that particular evil to occur.
Like or Dislike:
0
‘Lion Crater, evil is not a thing, a substance or an essance; it is a moral description of an action. It is, as defined by the Bible, “falling short of the mark.” To cause evil is inherently evil. Causing evil is not the same as watching evil occur and doing nothing to stop it. Thus for God to watch another causal agent do evil is not evil in itself. But to determine that the evil will occur and so bring it about, is evil.’
ok, a few problems here
first, ‘falling short of the mark’ relates specificaly to human sin, not evil in general. it’s not as if evil was trying to hit the mark in the first place.
second, you say, ‘To cause evil is inherently evil.’ how so? as i wrote earlier, ‘God can create something without taking on the nature of his creation. God did not become the heavens and the earth when He brought them into being, nor does he become evil by bringing evil into ‘being’.’
third, it seems inconsistent for one to say ‘To cause evil is inherently evil.’ and then say ‘Causing evil is not the same as watching evil occur and doing nothing to stop it. Thus for God to watch another causal agent do evil is not evil in itself.’ that would mean that in luke 10, the priest and the levite were perfectly within their moral rights to keep on truckin past the man beaten in the street.
i agree John, when you say, ‘Because the Bible uses human language, language that is given to us by God, it uses poetry and metaphor.’ As i wrote earlier, ‘it is appropriate to say that God is offended by evil. but God cannot somehow be overwhelmingly or ‘absolutely’ offended by it…precisely because it has no being. the result of evil is a corrupted created order so it’s paradoxical to say God ‘created’ evil. but that’s probably the easiest way to put it.’
there is an important sense in which evil is purely hypothetical. because God has no existing and absolute opposite or rival, he has to postulate in our minds eye, a sort of enemy of that which is good, a darkness to contrast from His light.
so again, i have no problem saying God ‘created’ evil, as long as these things ive mentioned are kept firmly in mind.
but, if one still wanted to insist that evil does not come from Gods decree, they would need to provide at least a faint positive case for where it does in fact come from.
but please don’t tell me it comes from creation, for then as God is necessarily God, then creation is necessarily evil, and forevermore.
Like or Dislike:
0
lioncrater, God watches evil all the time and does nothing to stop it. In America a murder happens every few minutes, God sees the murder, He does nothing to stop it. God is moral. Therefore, it cannot be inherently immoral or evil to see evil occur and do nothing to stop it. In the parable of the Samaritan, the point of the parable was not who sinned but who was a neighbour. Jesus did not say that the priest and levite sinned, only that they did not recognize their neighbour.
In addition to things that are inherently evil, there are things that are evil because they are contrary to a command of God. That is, it is evil to disobey a command of God; obviously, such an evil cannot apply to God, only to those who must obey Him. Thus, if we are commanded to lve our neighbour and help him, and then do not, we have sinned because we have not obeyed the command. No such command exists in relation to God, and God is not obliged to directly assist the samaritan (e.g., miraculous healing). It would be an act of love for Him to do so, but not an evil for Him to fail to do so; it would also be an act of love for us to do so, and an evil for us to fail to do so (assuming a command to do so, which seems apparent).
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum, the verses are open to at least two interpretations, both consistent with the facts stated therein. Normal human development, as created by God, is for humans to develop and be born with funcitioning eyesight. So, the fact that the man was born blind requires some sort of action or effect that disrupted normal development. God could have directly caused the developmental defect, or God could have refused to intervene in a developmental defect caused either by natural evil (genetic or environmental cause) or a supernatural evil (demonic). Either cause (direct action of God; no intervention by God) is consistent with God having the man born blind in order that he can heal the blind man.
In addition, even assuming that your apparent interpretation (i.e., that God directly caused the blindness) is correct, my reasoning and conclusions are not shown to be incorrect. God does not directly cause most (or even possibly all) development disfigurements and disabilities. God does not directly move the molecules and cells in the process of conception and intra-womb development. That is, He is not knitting together the cells in the same direct manner that a human knitter creates a garment. The phrase is poetic metaphor and refers to God’s ultimate creative power and sovereignty, not to any direct action (such as potentially occurred when the walls of Jericho fell down,or in a miraculous healing).
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
We agree on at least this much.
I think where we part ways is that you believe that there are only two ways for something to happen: either God directly causes something by miraculously intervening without any physical cause, OR you say that God had nothing to do with the thing that happened.
The problem with your philosophy here is that it contradicts the Psalm, where David praises God for making his body, a process which we KNOW is purely chemical and hereditary. If God does not get the credit/blame for making a crippled body, he also should not get the credit for making a healthy body.
The fall of a sparrow is also governed entirely by natural processes, as is the identity of each hair on my head; but God gives personal attention to each and every one, and Christ tells us that fact in order to tell us not to worry. Why not worry? Because anything that happens to those is part of God’s plan.
God, of course, creates all people, disfigured or not. And if God knows each of my hairs, and reassures me that it’s under His supervision and providence, He also knows about my receding hairline and knows that it’s part of His providence — and by extension, He knows about my neurological tremor, and it occurs under His supervision and providence.
But the blindness was — Christ specifically said — for a purpose. It wasn’t just a historical accident (well, that man’s parents sinned, or that man made a mistake); it was for the purpose of displaying God’s works. Christ said that there was a purpose, which means that there was a purposer and a designer. Someone decided that the purpose was best served by having a man be born blind. The purpose, according to Christ, was “so that the acts of God may be revealed” — which makes it probable that God is the designer.
Christ healing the man doesn’t prove that the blindness was an accident; it proves that God wanted to heal the man. In other words, the reason the man was born blind was that God wanted him to be healed by Christ. The universe is burdened with sin SO THAT God can redeem it.
-Wm
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »