The Evangelical Universalist Forum

God does not create, commit, or allow evil!

Does He always do that? What good can be brought out of the evil situation of a little girl being tortured, raped, and killed?
There is no obvious evidence that God is controlling conditions for that little girl.


You’re asking me to get inside the infinite mind of God here. That leads to ego and then megalomania.

Paidion, I am thrilled you are reading Richard Murray. To hear that is a great Christmas present for me! Btw, his web page is

“Those whom he made righteous, he also glorified.” We see the past tense here: “glorified,” not “will glorify.” So as to Step 4, I think perhaps it has already occurred, outside linear time, in eternity. That is to say, I think that we are all in two places at once: inside linear time here on earth, on Dec. 25, 2016, and yet already with God, outside linear time, in eternity.

I believe that in eternity, we are all already there, reconciled to God and enjoying never-ending celebration and adventure with Him. But here inside time (including hell, and certain perceptions of heaven), we are still in a time-bound classroom, until everyone has freely received God’s gift of reconciliation in Christ.

Again, we see it’s already done: we ARE seated with Christ, now. In two places at once.

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie, watch that movie, you won’t regret it. It compares and contrasts universalism, annihilationism, and infernalism, favoring universalism. I love Kevin Miller, although I disagree with the Girardians about Satan: I think the devil is a real person.

It is rated 67% fresh at, which is very high for them with Christian films. And their audience score is 78%. * But regardless of the critics, I think it’s a great movie. *

Wikipedia says, “The film [Hellbound?] features interviews of theologians and commentators who discuss various views whether Hell exists and if so, who would go there after death…Interview subjects include:

  • Glen Benton
  • Mike Bickle
  • Gregory A. Boyd
  • Ray Comfort
  • Ron Dart
  • Mark Driscoll
  • Hank Hanegraaff
  • Peter Kreeft
  • Bob Larson
  • Robert McKee
  • Brian McLaren
  • Necrobutcher
  • Robin Parry
  • Jonathan and Margie Phelps
  • Lazar Puhalo
  • Frank Schaeffer
  • Oderus Urungus
  • David Vincent
  • William P. Young”

They leave out of their list Brad Jersak, Michael Hardin, and Sharon Baker (author of Razing Hell), if not others.

I would lend you my copy, but you’re there, and I’m here…


So you can get inside of God’s mind with no ego or megalomania in order to know that He always allows evil for a good purpose, and thus is always in control.
But you cannot get inside God’s mind in order to explain how you know (1) that He always allows evil for a good purpose and (2) that He is always in control without moving toward ego and megalomania.


I’ve already explained that I know God is in control through Biblical revelation and have experienced His love and therefore know He has justifiable reasons. The Bible reveals that He is infinite. We are finite. The finite cannot fully grasp the infinite. I don’t try to use logic and figure God out. Relationships are about trust. I can trust God and do mercy and justice. I let go and flow.

In order to reach union with the Divine
it is necessary to leave the intellect behind.
One must let go of things and empty oneself
of everything in order to make room for
the flood of Divine illumination.

St John of the Cross ~~ Roman Catholic

Romans 12:19 - Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Proverbs 3:5 - Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Romans 8:28 - And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.

Proverbs 3:6 - In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Psalms 46:10 - Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

Mark 5:36 - As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.

Romans 15:13 - Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 6:25 - Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Psalms 9:10 - And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

Psalms 28:7 - The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in him, and I am helped: therefore my heart greatly rejoiceth; and with my song will I praise him.

Psalms 112:7 - He shall not be afraid of evil tidings: his heart is fixed, trusting in the LORD.

Jeremiah 29:11 - For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

Perhaps, under the new Trumpenstein administration, when we are all singing this Easy Street song: at, I might say this:

Speaking of evil. I ran into it, many years ago - with a pretty senorita’s boyfriend: :laughing:

We love God because of a changed heart. That is, we love and obey because we want to. That’s the essence of true freedom. This scripture tells us strongly of the New Testament Circumcision of the heart:

It’s about having a changed heart or new nature. Motives count too. Not just choices.


When I read this part of your reply, I flashed back to my own upbringing and remembered that my reaction to what I was taught to believe paralleled the response you gave here. I was taught Calvinism.
At that time I was attending a Baptist High School and Bible Class was part of the curriculum. The theology I was taught unsettled me, and I asked questions. Soon enough the exasperation I created in my instructor led me to learn to keep my mouth shut; for I was just a teenager and did not know, yet, how to refute the logic of Calvinism.

So, I decided that it was all a mystery, but I still felt responsible for my own actions. This led me to a decision. I decided that I was going to trust God; He seemed trustworthy, given the totality of my learning up to that point, even if the theology I was taught made me uncomfortable. So, for that decision, the desire to do good was aroused in me, even though I failed more often than not. But that’s a different thing to address.

All that was typed so I could type this: given that I perceive a Calvinistic influence in the thoughts you’ve typed out, your reaction is the best it could be because you are saying, “I trust God!” And that’s always a good thing!

That was the one thing that was required from the first humans, who failed to trust God, right into the billions of humans, many of which say, right into the face of horror, “I trust God!”

And keep on struggling to be good, if a struggle it is. For God knows your heart and that is how He fore-knows you.

And me. And the billions just like me.



I have two-cents in my brain that I would like to throw into the pot of this fabulous discussion.

Romans 8 is being bandied about here and, I will be honest with you, given my upbringing, I grew to despise Romans 8:28-30 because that passage along with Rev 13:8 and Rev 17:8 were the de facto passages provided as the foundations for the logic of Calvinism. I hated them because I could not refute them, and therefore could not refute Calvinism. I stewed in that for a very long time. During that time I learned of Arminianisim, which only left me a little less queasy. Frustration was also adding its unsavory flavor to the stew I was in because I could find no one who was willing to challenge these theologies with me, except to debate the contradiction that results when Calvinism and Arminianisim go toe-to-toe.

To make a long story short, I taught myself how to use the tools of Biblical research and eventually discovered exactly how Calvinism was translated into the English texts, which meant that neither Calvinism, nor its obverse side, Arminianisim, were the theology of the first Believers!
Soon a friend came along and introduced me to Universalisim! Cool! I still remember well all the instantaneous clicking that went on in my brain as the connections snapped one into another.
I was amazed to discover that the very method I had developed to refute Calvinism was the exact same method Universalist used to refute the deliberate mis-transations of aion and *aionios * and the passages wherein three proper nouns are translated with one generic verb-cum-noun, “hell.”

This changed the meaning of everything.

Including those pesky scriptures in Romans 8 and Revelation.

Then I discovered the Greek scholar A.E. Knoch’s translation, The Concordant Literal Version, and, through the confirmation of his translation, I fell in love with Romans 8:28-30 and Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 because those three scriptures, as they were originally written, seemed to support some very different thoughts that I was then wrestling with; thoughts that later became my heart.

So, if you will bear with me, I would like to present those passages from the KJV and the CLV, in parallel, and then provide a brief-as-possible comment that might bring a different perspective to this debate.

Of course punctuation changes everything. As the joke goes:

“Let’s eat Grandma!”

“Let’s eat, Grandma!”

Commas save lives.

Knoch was led in his understanding to join verses 8 & 9 with the conjunction, “that,” and a comma - as opposed to the KJV translators separating the two verses with a period followed by beginning the next sentence with the preposition, “For” (Indeed, the artificial verse division is because of this splitting of the thought!). The meaning is now changing.

Also, Knoch chose to translate proginosko, with the simple past tense verb conjugate, “foreknew,” while the KJV translators used the present tense conjugate, “foreknow.”

The difference between simple past and present tense is that the first tells of an action as if it already happened, while the second tells of an action as if it is happening right now.

The meaning is now changed even further!

Also, the addition of the pronoun, “his,” before purpose in the KJV is purely from supposition because none of the Greek pronoun forms are in the original text prior to, “purpose.”
Therefore, the article, “the,” as Knoch translated, is more appropriate: So, “His purpose.” becomes “the purpose…” This makes an even bigger difference!

Additionally Knoch translated proorizo with the phrase, “designates beforehand,” rather than an especial coined word, “predestinate.”
The difference in this is difficult to see if one doesn’t know that the second root word from which proorizo is built horizo carries the meaning of designate notdestinate.” The difference is that to designate is to assign, to destine is to fix one’s fate.

So, in the KJV translation it is implied that God’s purpose for those human beings He foreknows was to, “destine them before” (destined before what?) to be conformed to the Image of Jesus, which is God’s purpose for them, and by implication, them alone.
Thus, this passage is separated out from the context and twisted to support Calvinisim.

In Knoch’s translation verse 27 must come into play to understand how he saw his way clear to translate the way he did; for the context of this chapter is a monologue addressed to Believers on how the Spirit of Jesus makes a difference in the life of those in whom this Spirit makes His home. Thus the passage in question is a reminder to them, as well as an exposition on, the process of how God comes to designate those who are to receive this Spirit.

So, God foreknew the, “we,” of whom He says, “Now, we are aware…” because he is, “searching the hearts” (plural) and through the insight He gains for being able to see into the heart, God is aware of what His indwelling Spirit’s disposition is concerning any single Believer.
Therefore, it is by searching the heart that God foreknew anyone and, in this search, given what He finds there, He assigns (designates) certain ones to be reached by His Spirit, before they actually believe.
Obviously then His foreknowledge comes from this ability to search the heart, which is a lot different than foreknowledge of someone before they ever thought a thought.

He then reminds them of what they know from their own experience of salvation and the infusion of holy spirit they received and reminds them that this process of designating and calling and justifying and eventually glorifying a believer applies also to any others of whom God foreknew for searching their heart.

Given all that is written in the Bible about the heart, this makes more sense than the KJV idea that God sent Jesus just to save those whom he chose to save before they were ever born.

One word. Just one word is all it takes to make a difference.

And so, the debate over this one word rages hot, still, exactly because Calvinism (and Arminianisim) falls to dust if katabole does not mean, “foundation.”

So, why did Knoch dare to tread on the sacrosanct and translate, katabole, with, “disruption?”

The succinct answer is because his learning brought him to the conclusion that, “disruption,” was the best English word to express the original meaning in katabole. There is a lot more to be said about this word that would take a lot of typing to convey.

However, all I wish to do for now is point out that by changing this one word the meaning is changed in this passage from an imperative that discloses a book already written of those who will be saved from before the foundations of the earth were laid… Into a revealing that there is a book that is being written in, even now, with the names of the redeemed; and that entries into this book began at the disruption of the world, which can only be true if the world was already, “founded!”

It’s no wonder to me that there is so much debate over this word.
Because if the Apostle John had been told to choose themelios over katabole there would be no debate possible and Calvinism would have its most important supporting scripture, and, in that, Calvinism would be unassailable.

So, the question this raises is, “When did the the disruption of the world occur?”


The view of mine is actually held by the Roman Catholic Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. It’s in the books “Providence” and “Predestination”. He was an expert on St. Thomas Aquinas and teacher of Pope John Paul the II. The view was also held my the mystical doctor of Catholicism St. John of the Cross. And no I’m not as holy as he was but I’m a whole lot better than I used to be now that I have this view solidified in me. I believe in free will but also predestination. I agree with the Roman Catholic G.K. Chesterton. Here’s him explaining predestination and free will:

This has been my experience as well.

Hi Free! (or ελευθερος). I appreciate the forum name that you have chosen!

It is wise to be careful with “literal” translations. They often go awry by translating a Greek word into an English word as if a particular meaning applied, whereas that same English word is used in a different sense. If this isn’t clear, I’ll use an example Rom 8:28 in the Concordant version that you shared:

Now we are aware that God is working all together for the good of those who are loving God, who are called according to the purpose that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren.

You pointed out the rendering of “οτι” as “that” instead of “for.” The way that Knoch translated it as “that” sounds as if the word means “in order that.”

But, though ὁτι (hoti) does mean “that” in one sense of “that”; it never means “that” in the sense of “in order that.” There is a different Greek word for “in order that”; it is ἱνα (hina).

Here are some scriptural examples of ὁτι (hoti) meaning “that”:

Matthew 4:12 Now when Jesus heard that (ὁτι) John had been put in prison, He departed to Galilee.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that (ὁτι) I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Matthew 5:20 "For I say to you, that (ὁτι) unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that (ὁτι) it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’
Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that (ὁτι) whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

Although ὁτι means “that” in these sentences, notice that it does not mean “in order that” in any of them.
Here are some other sentences containing the word, in which most translators render the word as “for”:

Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, For (ὁτι) theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:4 Blessed are those who mourn, For (ὁτι) they shall be comforted.
Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, For (ὁτι) they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For (ὁτι) they shall be filled.
Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, For (ὁτι) they shall obtain mercy.
Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, For (ὁτι) they shall see God.
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For (ὁτι) they shall be called sons of God.

Translating the word as “that” in the above statements, would give it a different meaning. For example, it would suggest in the second one, “Blessed are those who mourn, IN ORDER THAT they shall be comforted.” But the word NEVER MEANS “in order that.”

Rather ἱνα (hina) is the word that means “in order that.” For example:

Matthew 1:22 So all this was done in order that (ἱνα) it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet…
Matthew 14:15 When it was evening, His disciples came to Him, saying, “This is a deserted place, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, in order that (ἱνα) they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.”
Matthew 12:10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” —in order that (ἱνα) they might accuse Him.

My thanks for the reply, qaz. Know that you are much appreciated.

Please know that I don’t take issue with election, for I understand, and therefore appreciate, Jehovah’s sovereignty over His creation and that He chooses whom He will, even from before they are born, to accomplish His purpose of the redemption of all human beings, which must include the ones he elected to accomplish a purpose!

It is an elegant thing to me to perceive how He is using turned human beings, and redeemed human beings, and corrupted celestial beings, and un-corrupted celestial beings, and a cursed Earth, to annul the work of the very adversary He rightly holds responsible for the turning of the first two human beings! Even though, apart from The Nacash, The Awdam would have never had a shot at acquiring Virtue before they acquired a conscience!

As Jesus said:

It’s so-called, “predestination,” that I have a problem with!

The two are very different things; and that they are inseparably linked one to another in the thoughts of too many is an unfortunate consequence of Calvinism.

So, now that the expense of Christmas is taken care of, I can purchase a copy of this book. Thanks for the reminder that I intended to do so when I first discovered this forum.

Be good!


I thank you, St.Michael, for this very thoughtful reply.

I have read a scattering of your posts and wish you to know that I appreciate your point of view, for I perceive that you desire to live according to the influence of the Spirit that has made Its home in you, that is to say, according to righteousness.

That’s a very good thing!

Therefore, however you have chosen to respond in your heart to what you called Providence and Predestination is not to be gainsaid by me! For I perceive that it is the heart that is of primary importance to Jehovah, not a theology.

I particularly appreciated the part Chesterton wrote about having one foot in the earth and one foot in fairyland. You see, it was C.S. Lewis’ The Magician’s Nephew and J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Silmarillion, and, of course, George McDoanld, that first got me thinking something different than I was taught. So, I have come to appreciate the role fantasy plays in understanding matters of the Spirit and of the soul.

Perhaps it may be perceived as an unfortunate thing from your perspective, but I am one of those Western-type human beings who equate consistency with truth. Please don’t hold that against me, for Jehovah knows my heart, as He does your’s, and, even as I know my own heart, so does He know that, apart from the understanding I’ve come to, I could not accept Him as the God of the Universe, much less love and worship Him, if I thought for one moment that the logic of Augustine of Hippo (aka Calvinism), accurately conveyed the personality of Jehovah. That’s just me, all over!

Therefore, please know that I am not on this forum, typing from my heart, so that I may refute anything anyone holds in their heart as the truth that motivates them to live righteously. For living from a heart of righteousness, in the end, is all that will matter when we are resurrected and stand before the dais of Christ to have our works approved by fire.

So, be good! :wink:


Ahh! Something different! A challenge to discover! Thank you, Paidion! I figured I could count on you to bring forth something to challenge me, once I caught your attention! :laughing:

I had not considered the verbs you pointed me to as significantly as you suggest. Please know that I am looking into what you pointed out here and will type out a reply with my conclusions.

Concerning literal translations, I am aware of the limitations in using, “one word for one word,” consistently. Such translations are well-called, “wooden translations.”
I know that idioms are always difficult to translate and that the shades of meaning inherent in one language can change the meaning in the original language when a single word is used consistently throughout a translation.

The thing I appreciate about The CLV is that there are precious few like it. Even Rotherham and Young don’t undertake the re-examination of the sacrosanct translations the way Knoch does. Thus, it provides a good base of comparison for the primary meaning of a word, vs. the “shaded,” meanings. Plus, for seeing that Greek can turn a noun into a verb, in much the same way English does, the primary meaning in a noun-cum-verb is retained.

For instance: We ship cargo on a ship!

(So, why don’t we car cargo by car? :laughing: )

Therefore, the CLV helps to bring out a primary meaning, which I find very useful.

Additionally, I perceive that it was this, “need,” to maintain shades of meaning in a translation that gave the KJV interpreters the wiggle-room they needed to insure that the savvy and ulterior-motivated James the first of England was pleased with his royal translation - which was commissioned in response to Calvin’s 1560, and very popular, Geneva Bible, which had margin notes that used Bible text to show that a King does not rule by divine right! Dangerous and therefore slanderous stuff, that.

Here is a brief biography on the personality of this noble King who gave us the 1611 Authorized Version of Holy Writ:

So, historically speaking, I perceive that there is provocation to question this translation on all levels, despite the fact that so many revere this version as being the only sure English translation, as if it were ordained by God, Himself.

I’ll be getting a response out on the verb thingy after a bit.

Please know that you are appreciated.

Be good!


steve7150 wrote:
I would like to blame Satan for the evil or at least killing attributed to God but Jesus doesn’t seem to suggest this in any of his OT references.

I would have to respectfully disagree:

“He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.” John 8:44.

Yes i agree Satan is a murderer and deceiver but it’s Jesus who references “the Law” where Moses many times proclaimed the death penalty for various offenses and Moses spoke for God. Jesus believed Moses spoke for God like here “until heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all is accomplished” Matt 5.18
Here Jesus validates the law as being just and from God so if Moses was fooled by Satan then so was Jesus.

Well, King James didn’t exactly GIVE us that translation; rather he approved and authorized the translation that was made by 47 scholars from 1604 to 1611. A lot of King-James-Only people think their Bible is the original 1611 Authorized Version. However, it has been considerably revised since then.

Here is what a page from the 1611 Bible actually looked like:

“Until heaven and earth pass away” - this expression indicates that the law never would be destroyed until it should be all fulfilled. It is the same as saying “everything else may change—the very earth and heaven may pass away—but the law of God shall not be destroyed UNTIL its whole design has been accomplished.”

The Law of Moses was abrogated at the cross. Jesus “fulfilled” it/accomplished it/finished it (ginomai).

Here is another hard verse: “For I tell you that UNLESS your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly NOT enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20.

But let’s clarify it:

*“For IF righteousness comes through the law, THEN Christ died in vain.” *Galatians 2:21.

To wit: righteousness is a gift to be freely received. Romans 5:17. We Christians are the righteousness of God in Christ. 2 Cor. 5:21.

God is perfect, but Moses was not. Let’s not confuse the two. Moses had a perception problem. For example, God told him to “speak to the rock,” in order to bring forth water to graciously provide for his beloved people, but unfortunately Moses angrily embellished the instructions:

“Listen, you rebels, must WE bring you water out of this rock? Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff.” Numbers 20:10-11.

The imperfections of the Law of Moses are indicated by these verses, among others:

-“For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Jn 1:17.
-“The ministry that brought death…engraved in letters on stone…The ministry that brought condemnation.” 2 Cor. 3:7-9.
-“Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees [Greek: [i]dogma] against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:14. [Note: “dogma” are the threatening curses and embellishments added by Moses to God’s instructions. By nailing these to the cross, God [i]“disarmed the powers and authorities” v. 2:15. ]
“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete.”
Hebrews 8:13.
-*“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set." *John 5:45.

Regarding the Bible, Jesus himself is the Word of God. John 1:1. Rev. 19:13. And so the Scriptures point us to THE Word of God, who is a person, Jesus. The Scriptures are only part of a progressive revelation of the goodness of God in Christ—a revelation that will continually increase, forever.

We should remember that the New Testament does not actually begin at Matthew 1:1, but later, with the crucifixion of Christ.

IF being a Christian means “To love God with all one’s heart, soul and mind” (Deut. 6:4,5), and “To love one’s neighbor as oneself” (Lev. 19:18)—THEN I fear there won’t be too many people in heaven. But, to reiterate, the New Covenant began with death of Jesus, not before.

One must bear in mind that most of what Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament, he was saying to people under the Law of Moses. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, lusting became adultery; anger became murder. Jesus was jerking the “works rug” out from under his listeners’ feet and pointing them to the grace of God, himself, the savior of all mankind. (He did the same thing with the rich young ruler, who insisted that he had indeed faithfully kept the commandments.) Furthermore, the New Covenant says, “As the Lord HAS forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Col 3:13). There is no more “forgive in order to be forgiven.” We forgive because we ourselves were completely forgiven at the cross. All our sins—past, present, and future—were all still future 2000 years ago. But our complete forgiveness took place at the cross (Eph. 1:7, Col. 2:13), NOT on a case by case basis by confessing our sins to God.

The Ten Commandments were part of a ministry that brought death and condemnation. The ministry of the Spirit brings righteousness. Through the death of Christ, the law of the Spirit of life has set us free from the law of sin and death.

Legalism is a system of living in which a person tries to make spiritual progress, and gain God’s blessings, based on what they do. Legalism is focused on behavior and is therefore an earning system. Legalism is the opposite of grace.

Grace is a system of living in which God blesses us because we are in Jesus Christ—and for no other reason at all. Grace is focused on our spiritual birth and is therefore a receiving, and sharing, system.

Legalism says, *“do, do, do.” *Grace says, “done, done, done.” Jesus has done it all. It is finished. Let us strive to enter, and remain in, his Sabbath Rest.

Unfortunately, many well-intentioned preachers actually throw gasoline on the fire of sin—by putting the focus on sin, instead of on Jesus.

Sin is not the problem! Lack of grace is the problem. But sin does not, and cannot, stop God’s grace:

“Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.” Romans 5:20.

Legalistic teachers “load men with burdens hard to bear”: “Behave!” “Obey!” “Promise to be good!”

…instead of unveiling the burden bearer: “Come to me…and I will give you rest.”

When preachers harp on what people must DO–putting the focus on themselves (e.g., “5 Steps”-“3 Keys”-“7 Principles”), instead of teaching them to receive, and rest in, what Jesus already DID–with the focus on Jesus, they are putting their hearers into further bondage to their sins!

Trying to be justified by the law (performance) alienates us from Christ, and causes us to fall away from grace. And GRACE is what keeps us out of sin, not Rules-Laws-Performance:

you are not under the law, but under grace.” Rom. 6:14.*
Sadly, the converse of that verse is also true:

‘If you are NOT under grace, but under law, then sin SHALL be your master.’

For Christians, we are not under The Law of Moses, but the Law of Christ.


That is neat Paidion. Fonts have come a long way since then!

God is perfect, but Moses was not. Let’s not confuse the two. Moses had a perception problem. For example, God told him to “speak to the rock,” in order to bring forth water to graciously provide for his beloved people, but unfortunately Moses angrily embellished the instructions:

“Listen, you rebels, must WE bring you water out of this rock? Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff.” Numbers 20:10-11.

The imperfections of the Law of Moses are indicated by these verses, among others:

-“For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Jn 1:17.
-“The ministry that brought death…engraved in letters on stone…The ministry that brought condemnation.” 2 Cor. 3:7-9.
-“Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees [Greek: dogma] against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:14. [Note: “dogma” are the threatening curses and embellishments added by Moses to God’s instructions. By nailing these to the cross, God “disarmed the powers and authorities” v. 2:15. ]
-“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete.” Hebrews 8:13.
-“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set." John 5:45.

I agree the Law of Moses ended with Jesus and i agree that Moses was not perfect. But my point was that Jesus validated the Mosaic Law when he said “not one jot or tittle should change until” Matt 5.18. So he said the Mosaic Law should not be changed until the right time and the only reason Jesus would have said that is because Jesus believed that God created the Law of Moses, not that Moses created it, or that Moses misunderstood God.

So the point is that the Mosaic Law has many punishments of death in it from God. Therefore it appears to me if you believe it’s not entirely from God then you have to believe Jesus was mistaken? Right?