God does not create, commit, or allow evil!

[anon47460357]

I believe God did intend them to eventually eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—but not while they were immature. That is the reason He forbade it. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with knowing the difference between good and evil. In fact the writer to the Hebrews indicates that it’s a sign of maturity:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:14 ESV)

God God never forbade them from eating from the Tree of Life, but there is no evidence that they ever did so. My thought is that God wanted them to mature through receiving life from that Tree.

But the Serpent wanted them to do it the other way around; eat right away from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It’s not always with bad things with which Satan tempts people, but He often tempts them to use good things in the wrong way—money, sex, food, etc.They acted according to the Serpent’s suggestion and ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil , but were not mature enough to handle that knowledge. They were mature physically, but not mentally and emotionally. So God drove them out of the Garden, and prevented them from returning so that they would not eat from the Tree of Life and perpetuate their lives in their fallen condition.

I agree with all this.

[davo]

Here are my thoughts. I believe God did intend them to eventually eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—but not while they were immature. That is the reason He forbade it. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with knowing the difference between good and evil. In fact the writer to the Hebrews indicates that it’s a sign of maturity:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:14 ESV)

I agree and as I understand it… it is this sense or thought of discernment in the judicial sense that lay behind the command not to partake thereof. I don’t see this as so much a moral issue as it was an integrity issue, i.e., could/would Adam be trusted to obey the command given? Adam was not in a place, at that time, maturity-wise to be determining, judging or differentiating on matters of “good and evil” — that was God’s prerogative, power, position and place to fill, not Adam’s — at least not at that time.

On the matter of… ‘does God create, commit and allow evil’? I say unequivocally, YES He can… albeit not of the sinister sinful sense which invariably is what so many think “evil” is said to be. That understanding when applied carte blanch leads to all manner of prevalent gymnastics to have God NOT doing “evil”, where in fact certain texts plainly say otherwise.

IF we understand “evil” in terms of “calamity” and NOT some sentient malevolent entity then it is clear in Scripture God indeed DID bring “calamity” i.e., evil or disastrous outcomes on certain ones… usually in terms of punishment on His disobedient children OR on those who unjustly troubled them.

The two most common words rendered “evil” across the Greek texts are… <πονηρός> ponēros and <κακός> kakos — both are mostly rendered “evil” / “wicked” / “calamity”. Both are used in the same sense in this prophecy about Jesus…

Isa 7:15-16 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil (πονηρὰ)* and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil* (κακὸν)* and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.*

In the Genesis account of “good and evil” the word used is <πονηρός> ponēros. However in Isa 45:7 it is <κακός> kakos…

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (κακὸν): I the Lord do all these things.

This cannot be white-washed to mean something other than an evil outcome, i.e., a “calamity” — which indeed is the word many modern translations use here for <κακός> kakos. But either way as it says… “I the Lord do all these things.”

[LLC]

Just came across this sentence in Richard Murray’s book:

God certainly has the power to hide, protect and deliver the righteous from harm, but He won’t and can’t use violence to stop violence

.

So, why create it in the first place, unless He always intended for them to have access to it?

Here are my thoughts. I believe God did intend them to eventually eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—but not while they were immature. That is the reason He forbade it. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with knowing the difference between good and evil. In fact the writer to the Hebrews indicates that it’s a sign of maturity:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:14 ESV)

God God never forbade them from eating from the Tree of Life, but there is no evidence that they ever did so. My thought is that God wanted them to mature through receiving life from that Tree.

But the Serpent wanted them to do it the other way around; eat right away from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It’s not always with bad things with which Satan tempts people, but He often tempts them to use good things in the wrong way—money, sex, food, etc.They acted according to the Serpent’s suggestion and ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil , but were not mature enough to handle that knowledge. They were mature physically, but not mentally and emotionally. So God drove them out of the Garden, and prevented them from returning so that they would not eat from the Tree of Life and perpetuate their lives in their fallen condition.

Paidion, I have to disagree. When God says not do something, He means don’t do it. We are not to steal, cheat, lie, murder, worship other gods, hate our brothers, etc. etc. I can’t think of anything that God commands us not to do that we can then do later on after we mature. In fact, when we become mature, we know better than to do what He tells us not to.

[jeff]

Question… how should Christians make conclusions about truth and what is true? If a Biblical statement does not square with my personal rules or reasons or experience then what options do we have? There are many comments in this post accepting or rejecting various propositions. However, what are your ground rules for determining truth? The subject of God’s sovereignty over all things, including evil, has been debated in this forum over and over. Yet how are we to gain ground in actually persuading one another and growing in unity?

Options when Biblical statements appear to conflict with my personal reason, judgment, and experience

1. We could question whether the Biblical statement is truly God’s revealed word or an injection, such as KJV 1 John 5:7.

2. We could simply acknowledge that God’s ways are higher than our ways and subject to Biblical statements over our own reason.

3. We could patiently wait for more understanding and experience without making premature conclusions.

4. We could ask, is there obvious one case where God or His ways are beyond our understanding, if there is one, then there could be more.

5. We could ask is it safer to trust my own judgment of matters or trust God’s word against my own judgment.

6. We could work toward interpretations that honor the whole of Scripture yet without bending or offending Scripture.

7. More ideas…?

It may be that agreement is not possible if we do not agree on the basic ground rules of how to determine what is true.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@jeff@dgjc.org

It may be that agreement is not possible if we do not agree on the basic ground rules of how to determine what is true.

If we could agree on the ground rules, then Christian theologians, Christian philosophers and churches - both historical and contemporary - would have already done so

As far as evil and suffering goes, we can find good answers…From professional Christian theologians and philosophers, both historical and contemporary. And folks can find the answer or answers, that satisfy them. At least, until God reveals the big picture to everyone

As far as I know regarding lotteries, everyone wins a prize - if they pick 5 out of 6 numbers (i.e. a good answer). And we all win the big prize, when God reveals all 6 winning numbers (i.e. the definitive answer).

[anon47460357]

3. We could patiently wait for more understanding and experience without making premature conclusions.

That’s the ticket. I am sinful, moronic, and ignorant. The Bible is none of those things.

[Eleutheros]

One more thing to ponder concerning the Tree of Life. If Jehovah knew of their turning as a fact before He created them, then the creation of this tree is a superfluous act of creation at best, and a deliberately misleading act at worst, because, for His knowing as a fact of their turning, He would also know that He would have to ban them from eating its fruits! So, why create it in the first place, unless He always intended for them to have access to it? This idea then makes the creation of this tree an act of optimism that their trust in Him would prevail! Thus, it is indicated that He could not have fore-known their turning when He created them, exactly because He created this tree alongside the other one.

Eli,
Putting aside a couple of references that Jesus sacrifice was pre-ordained before the foundation of the world and granting that “Open Theism” is true i find it hard to believe God had no idea what would happen. Additionally why not just forgive them, why curse Eve, why curse the ground with thorns and thistles, why appoint Adam as our representative and in effect punish us for Adam’s transgression? We are told we need to be more then conquerors, we need to be overcomers, we need to put on the full armour of God. So it sounds to me like we sorta want Heaven on earth right now but God himself has decided we need to develop our spiritual muscles by overcoming evil. To overcome evil it has to exist in this age. Not a popular message but to me it seems to line up with reality and with scripture better then any other idea.

Steve, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I’ve got a bit of time before my first class today and wished to offer you my thoughts on your inquiry.

The first thing to note is that I did not put aside those, “…references that Jesus sacrifice was pre-ordained before the foundation of the world…” I discovered those references to which you are referring to have been interpreted, and thus translated, in the light of Augustine’s fatalistic ideology; an ideology that in no way resembles the ideology of the first believers, which was the ideology of Universal restoration held to for as long as Greek was the language of scripture in the minds of the first and second century Christian apologists, not Latin.

Most of us are here because we recognized that the Latin interprets into scripture an eternal and everlasting hell of conscious torment, against the Original Greek. So, likewise was Augustine’s fatalistic ideology interpreted into the Latin translation, which became the defacto translation for our English Bibles. Augustine was a profligate who later embraced Manichaeisim before he became a Christian monk, highly influential in improving the Latin translation. That, in essence, is when Christianity changed into a religion, because Augustinianisim gave support to the developing divide of the ecclessia into clergy and laity.

In short, that understanding led to me becoming an, “Open Theist,” long before I knew there was a name for what I came to understand.

Hermano’s been writing a lot about how deadly fatalism is to understanding, so there’s no need for me to add any more of my pairings of pennies to that topic.

Now, I have never implied, much less said, that, “…God had no idea what would happen.” And I’m sure you do find that statement hard to believe, even as I would.

Instead, what I have been attempting to point out is that Jehovah could not know the outcome of a choice between trust and distrust that Jehovah had set before them.

Either one of two things was going to happen. That’s it.

Thus I am wishing to communicate that Jehovah put His trust in an optimistic outcome, while being aware that an unfavorable one was just as possible.

Therefore, the only thing He didn’t know was the one thing He couldn’t know, the outcome of their temptation to distrust. They were sentient and innocent, is my contention, and so the first two would set the course for human history to unfold either one way or another.

And don’t you know Jehovah knew what He would have to do, if they failed?

And that cost Him a lot. He has sacrificed much, including having to endure feeling His own anger and remorse at the evil we do, while enduring the same heart-break we endure that come from the Pain and Suffering we create, long, long before Jesus went to the cross as a Divine Human Being to enable us all to, one-by-one, be made complete, beginning, first, with those who will choose to love and trust Him. These first ones He fore-knows because He can read our hearts. And it is these that desire to be good that He elects to receive His grace which leads to an acceptance of faith by His working all things together for the good of them - oftentimes against the actions of other’s who’s actions are from hearts that Jehovah does not favor for having to know them.

Do you understand that every evil we create by our actions, every atrocity, every heinousness, every brutality, every depravity, every immorality, every malfeasance we commit around the globe, every single day, Jehovah feels - as well as the one’s that affect us - and He cares.

Do you think you could endure that kind of intimacy with human beings?

So, “…why not just forgive them, why curse Eve, why curse the ground with thorns and thistles, why appoint Adam as our representative and in effect punish us for Adam’s transgression?”

First of all, forgiveness does not equate to immediate restoration. From a human perspective, the purpose of forgiveness is to restore a damaged relationship, but it depends on both parties to forgive, which means both parties likely contributed something to the Pain and Suffering they endured for being in a relationship. We are weak in conscience and so our relationships suffer. Therefore, the need for our forgiving one another is a direct result of the reality of who we are.

Thus I see that, from God’s perspective, forgiveness could do nothing about the reality of what they now were - human beings who knew the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, but who will now have to struggle mightily to be good. My witness to this is Jehovah’s words to Cain when Jehovah was pleased with Abel’s offering, but not Cain’s:

And Man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have acquired a man with Jehovah. And she further bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a shepherd, but Cain was a husbandman. And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat. And Jehovah looked upon Abel, and on his offering; and upon Cain, and on his offering, he did not look. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. And Jehovah said to Cain, Why art thou angry, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, will not [thy countenance] look up [with confidence]? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door; and unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.[Gen 4:1-7 DBY]

Why would Jehovah of spoken this way to Cain, encouraging Him to resist the sin of not doing well and thus endure it’s consequent feeling of anger for not being accepted by his God, if Jehovah knew, as a fact, that Cain was later going to murder his brother? Thus, this knowledge of good and evil was now permanently and irretrievably in mankind. Yet, it was not the powerful thing Jehovah intended it to be, and so, in the likeness of Cain, human beings begin their struggle between what we want and what is right to do, rather than living from the opposite effect of the fruit in them which would have been that what we want is what is right to do, an effect that would have been made possible for enduring the temptation and then eating the fruit, with Jehovah’s permission.

And is that not our restoration? Is that not the work that will be annulled in us when all that Jehovah has said is done?

This knowledge was now permanently and irretrievably in mankind, so I said.

And here’s why: some things can only be done at the very beginning, after that, whatever the outcome, there is no possibility of going back, of, “pressing the reset button,” because the reset button would be the killing of the first two - and all of us would never exist and Jehovah’s purpose in creating human beings would be thwarted, permanently.

Thus, Resurrection becomes the thing wherein He will catch the conscience of every being.

You said, “We are told we need to be more then conquerors, we need to be overcomers, we need to put on the full armour of God.”

Yes, indeed, WE are told to do this because that is relevant to the reality of who we are - people who know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil - and yet, apart from being re-sired of Jehovah (born anew), are unable to realize the ideal world such knowledge creates in us.

And that is why I say, over and over again because it’s so very true,

Be good! It is after all what you were created to be!

And what’s wrong with thinking like that?

Dennis!

[jeff]

Senate Chaplain Barry Black just prayed that ‘God’s providence will prevail.’

This verse seems to agree, Proverbs 21:30 ‘There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.’

[Paidion]

Jeff, millions of people throughout the earth are planning evil acts daily, and many or most of them are successful in carrying out their plans.

Or do you think the success of their evil plans is not “against the Lord”—that the Lord is okay with them or has even ordained them?

[Paidion]

Paidion, I have to disagree. When God says not do something, He means don’t do it. …I can’t think of anything that God commands us not to do that we can then do later on after we mature.

I can think of at least one.

In instructing His disciples to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus asked them NOT to go to the Gentiles or the Samarians, but only to “the lost sheep of the household of Israel.”

(Matthew 10:5) These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.

But after His resurrection, Jesus said to Ananias concerning Paul:

(Acts 9:15) But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

There was a developing—a maturing of the Kingdom of God itself! Jesus spoke of this growth in many of His parables of the Kingdom.

So… at first Jesus instructed His disciples NOT to go the the Gentiles. After a bit or maturation, His disciple Paul, as well as others later on, were instructed TO GO to the Gentiles with the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Unlike the examples you gave, Jesus. instructions NOT to go to the Gentiles, was not a moral issue. But neither was God’s instruction to Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

[Hermano]

I like all this interesting, thoughtful discussion!

…
In the Genesis account of “good and evil” the word used is <πονηρός> ponēros. However in Isa 45:7 it is <κακός> kakos…

Isa 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (κακὸν): I the Lord do all these things.
This cannot be white-washed to mean something other than an evil outcome, i.e., a “calamity” — which indeed is the word many modern translations use here for <κακός> kakos. But either way as it says… “I the Lord do all these things.”

**“…It says…” that the Lord creates evil. Isaiah says. Was Isaiah correct about this? ** Or possibly, did he occasionally, in ignorance, confuse God and Satan? We must read the Scriptures by the Spirit of Christ, through the lens of love.

The Bible says. Is the entire Bible “the Word of God”? Or instead, is the Bible only part of a progressive revelation that quotes, and points to, THE Word of God?

If I showed you a beautiful banana, and asked what it was, you would say “banana.” But if I peeled the banana, and held up the edible fruit in one hand, and the banana skin in the other, perhaps you might now identify them separately as “banana,” and “banana peel.” One is merely the container for the other. And while we certainly appreciate the packaging (the Bible), we only eat the fruit (The Word of God).

The Bible indicates that JESUS is the Word of God. (For example, John 1, Revelation 19:13.) Yet we all know Jesus is not a book. To see this distinction between Jesus and the Bible better, here is a good essay by Richard Murray, called Is "The Logos-Word of God” The Bible?

I like to describe the Scriptures as only part of a never-ending, progressive revelation of the goodness of God, in Christ.

Here is an explanation of what is meant by “progressive revelation” from another thread:

How To Characterize The Bible If God Is Actually Nonviolent:

How then do we interpret and characterize the Bible, IF God is in fact nonviolent? We agree that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). But what if the Scriptures are only part of a “progressive revelation” of God’s true nature in Jesus—a revelation that keeps on growing forever? Jesus himself is, after all, THE Word of God (Revelation 19:13), and showed himself to be the arbiter of all Scripture. He said “All authority has been given to ME in heaven and on earth.” Matthew 28:18. And “You have heard it was said…but I say…” Matthew 5.

Theologian C.S. Cowles maintains that

While Jesus affirmed the Hebrew Scriptures as the authentic Word of God, he did not endorse every word in them as God’s. He rejected some Torah texts as representing the original intention and will of God, such as Moses’ divorce laws (Mark 10:4-9). He displaced Moses’ laws governing vengeance with his new ethic of active nonviolent resistance, of “overcoming evil with good” (Matthew 5:38-42; Romans 12:21). His command to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44) represents a total repudiation of Moses’ genocidal commands and stands in judgment on Joshua’s campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Professor Cowles further says

In progressive revelation what we see is … reflective of the human mediators’ growing understanding of his [God’s] character, will, and gracious saving purposes in Scripture. Isaiah, for instance, saw into the mind and heart of God more clearly than Moses when he virtually dismisses the whole sacrificial system that Moses believed to have been instituted by God, instructions that are given in great detail in Exodus and Leviticus. In contradistinction to Israel’s entire temple-cult and priestly system, Isaiah asserts that God does not require “burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals,” and that he took “no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.” What the prophet sees anticipates the dramatically clearer revelation of God fleshed out in Jesus: namely, that God is not impressed by outward ritual but rather inward holiness of heart and life (see Isa. 1:11-18)….

It is this very uncertainty about absolute truth that delivers us from the insufferable ‘arrogance of infallibility,’ that helps us to be humble in the claims we make about the Bible, and that keeps us dependent upon the Holy Spirit to “lead and guide us into all truth” (John 15:26), always looking to Jesus who alone is “the author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2).

Among many other interpretations about the two trees in the Garden of Eden, it has been suggested that they represent two ways of relating to God: that 1) by eating from the Tree of Life, God would rightly be perceived as unipolar, only life, and 2) by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, He would wrongly be perceived as bipolar: vacillating between life and death; protectiveness and violence–if not appeased.

Recall that James says double-minded people should not expect to receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-8). Surely a bipolar view of God leads to bipolar people, insecure about God, and defrauded of their full inheritance in Christ. A. W. Tozer believed we each tend “by a secret law of the soul” to gravitate toward, and grow to resemble, our mental image of God.

One thing is certain: man chose to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 3:6), and since then, “We see through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Regarding how to steer clear of that legalistic, literalistic glass in our study of the Bible, 2 Corinthians 3:6 spells out that the new covenant is not by the letter, but by the Spirit, “for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” We must be led by the Spirit of Jesus to correctly interpret Scripture! (We suggest here that Satan is the great legalist, not God.)

Finally, Jesus wants us to give special importance to Scriptures that point to him, as he did for the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” Luke 24:27.

We characterize the Bible, then, as only a part of a never-ending, progressive revelation of the goodness of God.

Blessings.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@Hermano

“…It says…” that the Lord creates evil. Isaiah says. Was Isaiah correct about this? Or was he possibly, in ignorance, confusing God and Satan? We must read the Scriptures by the Spirit of Christ, through the lens of love.

We got into this discussion before (in other threads here), about “God creating evil” - in the bible and language. I just need to dust off the Calvinist theologian (AKA CARM), Matt Slick’s answer at:

Does God create evil?

Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6

(Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
(Amos 3:6) - “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?”
Is God really the one who created evil? To answer the question we must first look at how the word for evil, rah, is used in the Bible, examine the context of the Isaiah 45:7 passage, and look at other passages on the same subject.

First of all, the Hebrew word for evil, rah, is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as evil. The other 232 times it is translated as wicked, bad, hurt, harm, ill, sorrow, mischief, displeased, adversity, affliction, trouble, calamity, grievous, misery, and trouble. So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as evil. This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as calamity by the NASB and NKJV; disaster by the NIV; and woe by the RSV.

Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena.

“I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these,” (Isaiah 45:5-7).

Notice that the context of the verse is dealing with who God is, that it is God who speaks of natural phenomena (sun, light, dark), and it is God who is able to cause “well-being” as well as “calamity.” Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. This is consistent with other scriptures. For example,

"And the Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11).
“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).
Also, take note that Isaiah is presenting contrasts. He speaks of “light” and “darkness,” “well being” and “calamity.” The word “well-being” in the Hebrew is the word for ‘peace,’ “Shalome.” So, in the context, we are seeing two sets of opposites: Light and dark, peace and non-peace, or well being and calamity. The “evil” that is spoken of is not ontological evil, but the evil experienced by people in the form of calamity.

From the above two verses (Exodus 4:11; Amos 3:6) we can see that the Lord is involved in calamity and problems in the earthly realm. Exodus 4:11 is speaking of human frailty and Amos 3:6 is speaking of woes in a city. It is not a moral evil that God brings, but calamity and distress upon people.
Of course, this raises other questions of why God would do such a thing, which I won’t cover here. But, we can trust that whatever God does is just and is used for teaching, guiding, and disciplining His people.

Third, there are other verses that clearly show that God is pure and that He cannot approve of evil.

“The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4).
“Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor,” (Hab. 1:13).
We can see that the Bible teaches that God is pure and does not approve of evil, that the word rah (evil) in Hebrew can mean many things, and that contextually the verse is speaking of calamity and distress. Therefore, God does not create evil in the moral sense, but in the sense of disaster or calamity.

**The consensus among Christian theologians and linguists, would side with Matt - on does God create evil in Isaiah. **

For example, in:

Did God Create Evil and Sin?

These truths help us come to the understanding that God did not create evil directly. Evil came about as a necessary consequence resulting from God’s creation of all that is good and from His implementation of an eternal plan for our benefit. The purpose of God’s plan is to elevate His children to a higher level of experience and happiness.

Or this article, from the Christian Courier at:

Did God Create Evil?

[Paidion]

Thank you, Hermano, for sharing your thoughts.

I agree with the progressive-revelation concept. Like Richard Murray, I think that the ancient Hebrew concept of Satan, was that he was an agent of Yahweh, and so that Satan had committing an act was considered to be tantamount to Yahweh committing the act

[Paidion]

By contrast, when the New Testament refers to “THE (definite article) Word of God,” it uses the Greek word “Logos,” and always and only refers to Jesus’ divine presence. The Greek word “Logos” in different contexts can be certainly used in other ways, but “THE” Logos “of God” always refers to the Spirit of Christ.

I must say that I was greatly surprised that Richard Murray should say this. For example, “the word of God” (Logos tou theou) in the book of Acts does not refer to “Jesus’ divine presence” or to “the Spirit of Christ” but rather the expression refers to the gospel (good news):

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.
Acts 6:2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
Acts 6:7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.
Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
Acts 11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
Acts 12:24 But the word of God increased and multiplied.
Acts 13:5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them.
Acts 13:7 He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
Acts 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Acts 17:13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds.
Acts 18:11 And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

[Hermano]

…
**The consensus among Christian theologians and linguists, would side with Matt - on does God create evil in Isaiah. **
…

Well hush my mouth, HFPZ, but little old me is not buying the common position laid out by Matt Slick and others. Their explanation may be “tried,” but (if your read my above comment links, you will see why) I don’t think it’s “true.”

-“God” morally uses the devil as His attack dog, so that He won’t technically get His hands dirty?
-“God” sends calamity and disaster, death, disease, and destruction, to “help” people?
-A “merciful” God casts most people into a hell that the “experts” agree is a never-ending torture-chamber?
-“Evangelism” should be a coercive marketing tool to sell fire insurance?

I refuse to redefine “love” to accommodate the more popular explanations of Matt Slick, or any other theologian.

Blessings.

[Paidion]

Yes, it’s a common “solution” to God creating evil according to Isaiah 45:7 to use the translation “calamity” rather than “evil.” Many people seem to think this gets God off the hook, since creating calamity isn’t nearly as bad as creating moral evil. But isn’t it evil to create calamity. If a human being deliberately creates calamity for others, he will be jailed if found out.

However, Whether it’s calamity or whether it’s what’s usually thought of as moral evil—creating it is morally wrong. Richard Murray’s solution is far more satisfactory. That it is Satan that creates this evil (whichever kind it is), but it is attributed by Isaiah to God since the Hebraic view at the time was that Satan was an agent of God who could do only what God allowed him to do, so one might as well say that God did it.

[LLC]

Paidion, I have to disagree. When God says not do something, He means don’t do it. …I can’t think of anything that God commands us not to do that we can then do later on after we mature.

I can think of at least one.

In instructing His disciples to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus asked them NOT to go to the Gentiles or the Samarians, but only to “the lost sheep of the household of Israel.”

(Matthew 10:5) These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.

But after His resurrection, Jesus said to Ananias concerning Paul:

(Acts 9:15) But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

There was a developing—a maturing of the Kingdom of God itself! Jesus spoke of this growth in many of His parables of the Kingdom.

So… at first Jesus instructed His disciples NOT to go the the Gentiles. After a bit or maturation, His disciple Paul, as well as others later on, were instructed TO GO to the Gentiles with the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Unlike the examples you gave, Jesus. instructions NOT to go to the Gentiles, was not a moral issue. But neither was God’s instruction to Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Paidion, again I have to disagree. Adam and Eve decided to follow the words of a liar and deceiver instead of the word of God. Even in maturity, we should not do this. It would be breaking the first commandment, that we should not put any other gods before God. From what I understand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents what man says is good and evil rather than what God says. It is a case of man choosing to be his own authority.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@Hermano

-A “merciful” God casts most people into a hell that the “experts” agree is a never-ending torture-chamber?
Blessings.

Actually, there are different alternatives to ECT - that are accepted today:

Metaphorical view of hell
Exile - where folks torture each other - not God
Annihilation
P-Zombie - where folks become sub-human (Rev. N.T. Wright)
Universalism

@Hermano

]Well hush my mouth, HFPZ, but little old me is not buying the common position laid out by Matt Slick and others. Their explanation may be “tried,” but (if your read my above comment links, you will see why) I don’t think it’s “true.”

When we reject what history gives us, via creeds and common consensus, then any number of equally compelling, Biblical exegesis emerge:

Christian Science (everything is ideas and evil and matter don’t exist)
God pulls the strings and there are is no free will
Etc.

Actually, from a standpoint of pure brilliance…Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science spin of scripture, is more compelling to me…then some of the versions, presented on this forum.

@Hermano

I refuse to redefine “love” to accommodate the more popular explanations of Matt Slick, or any other theologian…

I think Mary Baker Eddy does express love brilliantly, in her exegesis. And it’s more compelling to me, then what you are presenting (i.e. if I ignore historical creeds and common consensus).

And don’t forget my own original, Biblical exegesis, I presented here at P-Zombies and Universalism

http://www.thebackpew.com/uploads/4/2/4/9/42493387/5993352_orig.jpg

[anon12438761]

Ok, about creeds , common consensus- two quotes, one short, one longer

1. This is a short excerpt from a GREAT essay:

"My aversion to human creeds as bonds of Christian union, as conditions of Christian fellowship, as means of fastening chains on men’s minds, constantly gains strength.

My first objection to them is, that they separate us from Jesus Christ. To whom am I to go for my knowledge of the Christian religion but to the Great Teacher, to the Son of God, to him in whom the fulness of the Divinity dwelt? This is my great privilege as a Christian, that I may sit at the feet not of a human but divine Master, that I may repair to him in whom truth lived and spoke without a mixture of error, who was eminently the wisdom of God and the light of the world. And shall man dare to interpose between me and my heavenly guide and Saviour, and prescribe to me the articles of my Christian faith? What is the state of mind in which I shall best learn the truth? It is that in which I forsake all other teachers for Christ, in which my mind is brought nearest to him; it is that in which I lay myself I open most entirely to the impressions of his mind. Let me go to Jesus with a human voice sounding in my ears, and telling me what I must hear from the Great Teacher, and how can I listen to him in singleness of heart? All Protestant sects, indeed, tell the learner to listen to Jesus Christ: but most of them shout around him their own articles so vehemently and imperiously. that the voice of the heavenly Master is well nigh drowned. He is told to listen to Christ, but told that he will be damned if he receives any lessons but such as are taught in the creed. He is told that Christ’s word is alone infallible but that unless it is received as interpreted by fallible men, he will be excluded from the communion of Christians. This is what shocks me in the creed-maker. He interposes himself between me and my Saviour. He dares not trust me alone with Jesus. He dares not leave me to the word of God. This I cannot endure. The nearest possible communication with the mind of Christ is my great privilege as a Christian. I must learn Christ’s truth from Christ himself, as he speaks in the records of his life and in the men whom he trained up and supernaturally prepared to be his witnesses to the world. On what ground I ask, do the creed-makers demand as sent to their articles as condition of church membership or salvation? What has conferred on them infallibility? “Show me your proofs,” I say to them, "of Christ speaking in you. Work some miracle. Utter some prophecy. Show me something divine in you, which other men do not possess. Is it possible that you are unaided men like myself, having no more right to interpret the New Testament than myself. and that you yet exalt your interpretations as infallible standards of truth. and the necessary conditions of salvation? "

2.From ‘God in Search of Man’ by A.J. Heschel. Wonderful book -

[davo]

@Hermano

I like all this interesting, thoughtful discussion!

@davo

…
In the Genesis account of “good and evil

” the word used is <πονηρός> ponēros. However in Isa 45:7 it is <κακός> kakos…

Isa 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (κακὸν): I the Lord do all these things.
This cannot be white-washed to mean something other than an evil outcome, i.e., a “calamity” — which indeed is the word many modern translations use here for <κακός> kakos. But either way as it says… “I the Lord do all these things.”

“…It says…” that the Lord creates evil. Isaiah says. Was Isaiah correct about this? Or possibly, did he occasionally, in ignorance, confuse God and Satan? We must read the Scriptures by the Spirit of Christ, through the lens of love.

Murray’s so-called exegetic quote below… what an abortive load of tripe, “IMO” of course. This is EXACTLY what I mean by “prevalent gymnastics” — or let me restate that in full…

“That understanding when applied carte blanch leads to all manner of prevalent gymnastics to have God NOT doing “evil”, where in fact certain texts plainly say otherwise.”

@Richard Murray

B. SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 45:7

Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil, I the Lord do all these things.”

Step 1) God sends a “divine impulse” to Isaiah. Satan is not involved in the original impulse. Thus, the original impulse IS “inspired” by God in totality. 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Step 2) The divine impulse is not in any human language, and so the impulse must be processed by Isaiah through his mind and heart. Here Satan CAN be involved in “distorting” the TRANSLATION of that original divine impulse into human language.

Step 3) Because the Old Testament saints had an undifferentiated view of God, this further affected their ability to perfectly translate the original divine impulse into human language. The original divine impulse here contained information about BOTH the good things God does and the evil things He does NOT do (the evil which Satan does, in other words). Isaiah 45 says many wonderful things about God, but also a few “by the letter” misattributions, wrongly translated ideas about God which should have been EITHER attributed to Satan OR denied as being from God.

Step 4) As we now read Isaiah 45, both in proper context and by the Holy Spirit, we are compelled to “reverse-engineer” any verses inconsistent with God’s New Testament character revealed in and through Jesus Christ. We spiritually “reverse-engineer” the troubling passage back to the original divine impulse, and then retranslate the verse with New Testament light. The result will be a redividing of the Scripture to better conform to our better New Cevenantal understanding of the goodness of God.

Step 5) Below is the new reading with just a slight “reverse-engineering” adjustment that reveals Jesus’ nature. Doesn’t this passage now become beautiful and full of glory!

"I am the LORD , and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun , and from the west , that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. ****** I create the light , and in me is no darkness ******[per 1 John 1:5] . ***I make peace , and cause no evil[per James 1:13-17] : I the LORD do all these things. Drop down , ye heavens , from above , and let the skies pour down righteousness : let the earth open , and let them bring forth salvation , and let righteousness spring up together ; I the LORD have created it. " Isaiah 45:5-8.

Hermano, with all due respect to you… the inspired (by God) Isaiah was neither ignorant nor confused! You may as well apply Murray’s concocted blancmange he calls “exegesis” (cough) and magically massage it into ANY so-called “troubling passage” i.e., one that upsets the gut of any sacred cow. I feel I could use any number of other choice words here… but I’m not sure I’m getting the “impulse” quite right.