It's not a hypothetical email exchange. You can read in the article section on [the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry web site].
I said given a hypothetical email
like the one you described. In other words, I wasn't talking about the one you described—for I know nothing about it—but rather one like it.
I have no reason to believe you even know the author of that email; it's unlikely that any CARM staff knows her, either. So, instead of talking about some person neither one of us knows who isn't even here to speak for herself in the first place, let's discuss this in the context of the monstrous, violent abuse that I suffered repeatedly throughout my entire childhood, year after endless year, at the hands of those who should have cared for and protected me the most. I mean, instead of guessing what an innocent victim of demonic crimes would or wouldn't feel or find helpful, let's allow one to speak for himself.
What did Calvinist preaching tell me? Did it tell me that God wanted this little boy to be beaten, degraded, whipped, belittled, and finally thrown out like garbage? No, sorry, it did not. Maybe that's what it tells you—but we're not talking about you. We are talking about how an innocent victim of horrible, malevolent crimes would feel upon hearing such sermons, and I am happy to volunteer that information. Please take it seriously. (Or do your beliefs about such victims not extend to any that are talking to you?) Through Calvinist preaching—thank God for R. C. Sproul—I learned that God is infinite in being and perfection—sovereign, completely holy, all-wise, and almighty—and that he works everything according to the purpose of his will, which is purely righteous, and for his own glory, which is inextricably connected to the good of his children. I learned that he is loving, gracious, merciful, and long-suffering, overflowing with goodness and truth, that his judgments are fully just, he hates all sin, and will not acquit the guilty. So, I felt assured and comforted that God had good purposes in the nightmare I experienced—and one day I can find out what those purposes were—and that my unbelieving parents would pay the ultimate price at the judgment throne of my heavenly Father because THEIR intentions were anything but good. And this distinction is a biblical truth manifest in the lives of Joseph and Sennacherib and more, stories about which I learned from Calvinist preaching.
What I heard through non-Calvinist preaching (Baptist) was that God had no reason for the gratuitous evil that happened to me. It was purposeless. That, I assure you, neither brought me any comfort nor put me on a healing path. It left me in anguish and confusion. And your answer is even worse: God valued a human faculty (my parents free-will) more highly than his innocent little image-bearer (me). "I refuse to interfere with their free-will, so I'm going to let them violate you." Never mind the horrible message that sends, it's not even biblical because there are many examples in Scripture of God interfering with human free-will. In other words, God not only can interfere but has done so—just not for this innocent little boy?
You see, you just can't say he allowed it. You would [have to] be on non-Calvinist ground to say that.
A Calvinist most certainly can say that God "allowed" it because what he means by that term is that (a) evil doesn't proceed from God, the first cause, (b) whose holy righteousness does not and cannot cause or approve sin. This is stated expressly in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Consider the example of Satan trying to make his case through Job, a servant of God who rightly saw it all as from God; and even in the final chapter of the book of Job it says that, after God abundantly restored all that Job had lost, his family and friends comforted him and consoled him "for all the trouble the LORD had brought on him" (Job 42:10-11). Satan could not have done anything if God had forbidden him; thus God allowed it, so ultimately he brought it upon Job.
The reason why is because God gave humanity free will.
Yes, he did—a freedom of will that man possessed so briefly. From the fall of Adam and Eve onward, the human will has not been free but rather enslaved to sin.
It breaks his heart how [man] uses it, and [he] will judge evildoers eventually, but that's a lot more comforting than to say ... [snip rest]
A lot more comforting to whom? Victims of heinous evil? Remember, one of them is talking to you. Hear me when I tell you that no victim would be comforted by hearing that God values a human faculty more highly than a human image-bearer. "I refuse to interfere with their free-will, so I'm going to let them violate you. I could stop them—I have in the past—but I'm not going to."
Sorry, but you Calvinists claim [that] God has a purpose for every precise thing that occurs.
We do, yes, a belief derived from the witness of Scripture. I mean, not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from our Father's will. We so rarely know what his purposes are in any given situation but, given what God has revealed about himself and his acts throughout history, we confidently believe and proclaim that nothing in creation is purposeless.
(I want the reader to observe and even review how many references to Scripture my argument has been making, including this one about sparrows, and contrast it with the stark absence of biblical references within arguments for the freedom of the human will. It is a deafening silence. Draw your own conclusions, but at least notice that.)
And the reason he allowed it is for the reason he gave men free will. Again, a thousand times more comforting then to hear from a Calvinists God ordained it to happen by intent.
First, saying that God allowed something because he gave man free-will is tautological; it's saying the same thing twice in different words (essentially, he allowed it because he allowed it). Second, you keep repeating that your view is a lot more comforting, but saying it over and over doesn't make it so. An explanation is needed, not a tautology. For example, (a) why is a human faculty more valuable than a human image-bearer, and (b) how is that supposed to be comforting to the image-bearer herself?
-- DialecticSkeptic
