The Evangelical Universalist Forum

God does not create, commit, or allow evil!

Let’s examine the passage in its context. Jesus said:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:17-22)

Jesus once said that Moses spoke of Him. I suggest that both the section of the Hebrew writings called “The Law” as well as the prophets predicted what Jesus would do and accomplish here on earth. Isaiah particularly did so. Jesus was saying that these predictions would all be accomplished. But He was referring to the commandments of the law, too. However, notice that He didn’t say that God gave them, but that “you have heard it was said to those of old.” And then He gave an even stricter commandment. However, sometimes His commandment was just the opposite.

Verses 33, 34:
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all…

Verses 38, 39:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.

So, Steve, if Jesus validated the Mosaic law, it seems strange that His law for His disciples was the opposite.

Also, according to the apostle John, Jesus Himself broke the Sabbath law:
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

Again, it doesn’t make sense that anyone validating the Mosaic law, would himself break the Sabbath.

I think it could be more the case of… “the law and prophets were unto John and since that time…” (Lk 16:16); and given the law’s work was to lead to Christ (Gal 3:24); and that IN Christ the Law was redefined in terms of its original heart intent — NOT the strict, callous and empty Pharisaic literalism (Mt 23:13), THEN we can consider that “the law” was summed up, or completed in, or thus “fulfilled” in that Jesus didn’t come to subvert the Law but to ratify its intent in Himself.

Jesus showed by the beatitudes HOW the law was summed up in LOVE i.e., having one’s neighbour’s interests at heart; or as shown in Paul…

Hermano - I just read that article and the Q and A that followed. I read it in big bites, now I have to go back and live with it for awhile. It has the potential to ‘shake the foundations’.

Thanks, Davo. You have expressed that, well!

Re: Murray’s paper on Satan, referred to by Hermano - a couple of early observations:

  1. I like Murray’s use of the “Jesus Hermeneutic” (JH) and the concept of ‘bracketing’. That usage reminds me of the totally liberating hermeneutical principle that I first read in Channing, and that I have referred to often.

  2. The JH, in general terms, means understanding the O.T. in the light of the New. More pointedly, the purported/reported acts of Yahweh in the OT must be challenged if those acts fundamentally differ from: “would Jesus Christ have done that”?

  3. This is using ‘High Christology’ as the means for understanding the language of harshness, capriciousness, and hyperbole that is attributed to Yahweh by those in the infancy of the human race. In that infancy, Yahweh and Satan were often mixed up!!! You have to read that article to see how Murray go es about it.

  4. This understanding, that the OT believers had not yet been able to distinguish the character of God from certain pagan conceptions, allows us to see the continuity between the Father in the OT and the Son in the NT. This has always been a troublesome point for me, btw. I was at one time pretty close to Marcion in my thinking. No longer.

  5. I’m not yet certain that I can go all the way with Murray, but these are early days, and I have not yet started an immersion into the article. The question of ‘sovereignty’ is one that I will have to delve into a bit more closely.

Stimulation!! Recommended.

Thanks Dave! You have indicated that you are learning about these matters. So am I—even at the ripe old age of nearly 79.
But the majority of Christians believe that Murray’s teachings are high heresy. I quoted him in another forum—also George MacDonald who wrote:

The belief that God is entirely good in the face of Moses’ writings and those of some of the prophets, which clearly say that God kills people, is highly offensive to many. The last post against the belief that God is LOVE in His essence, and in Him is no darkness at all is the following:

I have noticed that a great proportion of the questions, squabbles, misunderstandings, rants over the years I’ve been here on the Forum have revolved around the OT, and the attempts to reconcile it with the NT.

Lots of things go into the mix of opinions - what is inspiration, what is inerrancy, what is a literal approach, what is imaginative, what are the ‘controls’ for our hermeneutic, what does the OT mean when it says 'Thus saith the Lord" - and a multitude of other considerations.

Why have these things not been ironed out yet? I suggest it is because our method of approach to the OT needs to be clarified. As an example - when I first got ‘saved’ in an AOG church back in 1966, someone handed me a Bible. I took it home and tried to read it, starting of course with Genesis. Well I was totally at sea within a day’s reading. I flipped ahead to Isaiah, and read at the top of the page this helpful remark: “Isaiah preaches to the Church in captivity”. What??? The church??? Back then?? This is not an uncommon occurrence; so much so that I say the LAST book to hand a new convert is the Bible. It’s a difficult book if read naively and hard enough even with some training. And that consideration makes me anxious to find a methodology, an approach, that opens up the Bible and settles the ‘cognitive dissonance’ between the OT and the NT that is on the surface, but which may disappear with a mature reading.

I don’t think it is helpful to just willy-nilly accept some religious body’s dictum that the scriptures are the word of God, inspired, etc - without knowing what those words even mean. What IS the word of God? Is it the bible, or is it IN the Bible; well these things have been argued forever. I think Murray’s article worth reading and we might learn something from it.

I also recommend Bob Wilson’s work which is available towards the top of the Forum page. Very educational.

DaveB said

Ah Yes, Ah Yes :smiley: But we gotta make a go of it… The spirit moves like the wind. :sunglasses: It is the voice that calls…

Hermano - I just read that article and the Q and A that followed. I read it in big bites, now I have to go back and live with it for awhile. It has the potential to ‘shake the foundations’.
"He who binds to himself a joy / Does the winge

John W Shoenheit was the co-author of the original book “Don’t blame God” and he is on You Tube in a 4 part series called “Don’t blame God.” They seem to have the same viewpoint as Murray for anyone who is interested.

Thx for the tip!

When the Bible speaks of death, I think the authors are talking about different kinds of death. It is quite obvious that death is a natural part of life. To say that this occurs because man sinned or because of some cosmic rebel seems unrealistic. A tropical storm that blows in and wipes out a community, for example, is an act of God to me. This would not be due to sin or Satan. Yes, sin does cause death, but man did not make this Law, God did. So I suppose it depends one how one sees as to whether or not God is the destroyer. In the case of the Civil War and slavery, was it God speaking, or was it Satan/man? That being said, I do believe that all evil comes from the heart of man.

hen the Bible speaks of death, I think the authors are talking about different kinds of death. It is quite obvious that death is a natural part of life. To say that this occurs because man sinned or because of some cosmic rebel seems unrealistic.

The bible specifically says Satan has the power of death and his name means “Adversary” and i believe he is called the Angel of Death and the Destroyer elsewhere in scripture. So he is part of the mix, but the question is to what degree?

Steve, In reading the article that Hermano posted, I get the impression that the author believes there is a battle going on between God and some satanic cosmic warlord out in outer space. I don’t believe natural occurrences such as a forest fire started by a lightening strike, floods, hurricanes, tornados etc. etc. are acts of a cosmic rebel. Nor would I say that these things happen because man sins. To me, Satan is basically the evil workings of the hearts and minds of men.

I don’t think any mainline Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant Churches…or any Christian, academic professor of theology, philosophy or some branch of science…would agree that "natural occurrences such as a forest fire started by a lightening strike, floods, hurricanes, tornado etc. etc. are acts of a cosmic rebel. " And if they do, they are in the minority.

How about the Church Fathers? We must remind ourselves that we do not live in a spiritual vacuum. (As to that “satanic cosmic warlord,” his activities can only be discerned and confronted by people who recognize that the demonic powers are real people, and that they were defeated at the cross.)

Here is a related article by author, theologian, and criminal defense attorney Richard Murray that he sent me via email:

Blessings.

PS We need to wake up and become more proactive against these “imaginary” enemies, instead of passively allowing ourselves to be victimized and defrauded by them, and blaming it on…bad luck? …bad government? …bad military? …bad economy? …bad genetics? …our loving heavenly Father?

Hermano. If the readings of the church fathers support your thesis, then why hasn’t the Eastern Orthodox Church - adapted that viewpoint? I’m talking about the statement, that he is the direct author - of natural disasters. I need to read your quotes later, and see if they apply to that. And I would need to see the full context, of your quoted statements. The Eastern Orthodox churches rely heavily, upon the church fathers - among with Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Herman, I agree with 75% of what you/ Murray are saying - I just haven’t had time yet to really think about the other 25%. Murray is onto something that has been neglected for a long time - whether I go all the way with him I don’t know. But he has added to my understanding.

On this (and other) forums you could state that :
If A>B and B>C, then A>C
…and you would still get argued till the end of time. “Can you prove that A>C? Why do you think logic is so infallable? Where does it say in the bible that A>C? If God did not want A>C then it would not be!! Was there any ECF that explicity said A>C?? Why do you rely on the natural mind so much? God told me that A<C, why should I listen to sinful man otherwise?”

Just the nature of forums, I reckon!

I have to admit, I tried the bracket thing as the article suggested, and it didn’t seem to work for me. Maybe it’s just me. :confused: For example Genesis 19:13 says this: “For we will destroy this place (Sodom and Gomorrah), because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord[Satan], and the Lord [Satan] has sent us to destroy it.” Again, Genesis 19:24 says “Then the Lord [Satan] rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord [Satan] out of heaven.” Now, a couple of questions come to mind. If God does not allow evil as the OP suggests, then why is He allowing a cosmic rebel to hijack the heavens and rain fire and brimstone down on people? Secondly, the article also mentions that Satan caused the flood in the story of Noah. Why is Satan offing all the evil people? Doesn’t he need armies to take over and rule the world? This makes no sense to me.

Yeah, that’s part of the 25% I’m struggling with…