There are problems with the “Show it to me in the word of God” approach. This is most apparent in “Christian Theonomy” - which ‘flattens’ all Scripture to the same level of authority and/or inspiration - not leaving room for genuine progress in revelation, not leaving room for errors of perception in O.T. customs etc. That approach does not give the necessary extra weight to the fullest revelation, that is the N.T., but insists that O.T. customs and practices have equal weight as does the revelation of God in Christ. That imo distorts the entire interpretive enterprise.
So unless there is agreement on the extra-biblical basis of interpretation, it’s inevitable that proof-texting will not be productive, apart from the fact that many of the concepts in the Bible are, as you know, multi-vocal.
Maybe what I’ve said here amounts to 'blah blah blah" - but I hope not. Just making the point that in order to understand the scripture, we have to start OUTSIDE the scripture and make some choices on how to proceed. The price for not doing that it the possibility of talking past one another.
$.02
Jeff, looking at the verse to which you referred in context:
Isn’t the “all things” in verse 36, referring to the material creation? Including any gifts which we imagine we could give to the Lord, who has created all things?
I don’t think the “all things” was meant to include all events. Events such as tortures, rapes, and other cruelty surely do not have their origin in the Lord.
Well, Randy, you might learn more about it by first dropping your bits of sarcasm.
Just above that definition is a link to ReKnew. That is Open-Theist Greg Boyd’s site. You will have far better success in understanding Open Theism, if you consider his teachings on the matter—or other open theists such as John Sanders, than in taking the word of a contributor to Wikipedia. I recommend John’s excellent book “The God Who Risks, A Theology of Providence.”
Well, Paidion, I wouldn’t be sarcastic, if you didn’t just say something is blatantly wrong - in the first place. But if we were in academia, I would ask you to back up your hypothesis, statements or conclusions - with scholarly, reference notes. Otherwise, we have to conclude that Google and the subject matter experts, peer reviewers and comprehensive editorial process - at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - are wrong also. I’ll leave it up to folks here, whether they wish to side with you or Google and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (i.e. along with their subject matter experts, peer reviewers and editors - see About). What are the odds of that occurring?
But if we look at this handout from the University of Central Florida on What is a Scholarly Source?, it says:
Now let’s review what you wrote:
And for the benefit of everyone, the folks at the Protestant site Got Questions, tried to answer it with What is Open Theism?
Please note that this statement from Got Questions:
Does not differ substantially from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s statement:
Perhaps you are reading more into their definition then what is actually there? At Dictionary.com, conditional has both a “grammar” and “logic” meaning. The logic meaning is:
Do you have any documented evidence - from reliable referential, scholarly works - to back your thesis or conclusion or refute my alternative explanation?
One of my professors at the College of DuPage, was a seminary graduate with a PhD in philosophy. We have to consider that she has the proper credentials to be a subject matter expert. We had numerous conversations on Open Theism and she did her best to show me the holes in it (actually, it gave me an opportunity then to talk to a single, morally sound and extremely intelligent female). For the record, I do not personally embrace it. I put more stock in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy than I do in Wiki (i.e. basically for the subject matter expert authors, peer review and comprehensive editorial review process) - unless the Wiki authors and contributors have made referential footnotes (i.e. a **good **practice for **some **folks here). Most of the time, I’m providing links and definitions for folks here, who are not familiar with the topics I introduce. As a famous scientist once said:
James 1:12-17
Let no one say when he is tempted. “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin , when it is full-grown, brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
Romans 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
To me, this says that God gives us over to or let’s us follow our own ways so that we may find out for ourselves that His ways are true.
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to futility, not of it’s own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from it’s bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Again, I interpret this verse a bit differently. God gave man authority over all the earth and it’s creatures according to Genesis 1:26. We are to make it a fruitful habitation. When we choose to sin, the earth and it’s creatures also suffer our negligence and abuse. When we witness the fruitlessness of our own ways, hopefully we come to realize that God’s way is the only true way to life.
Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.
According to this verse, we either follow God’s way, which is the way to life, or we follow our own ways which lead to destruction.
The heart of the question is who or what is the source / cause of original sin. The question is why does all mankind universally have a sinful nature? Mankind is sinful by our very nature and why is this? Or some may argue that we are not sinners by our nature.
The Arminian / CS Lewis answer is that God gave mankind a free will which allowed for the possibility of mankind choosing to sin. The begging question with this answer is if mankind does truly have a free will, why didn’t at least some people then choose to live a life of no sin? Why has every individual that ever lived sinned and fallen under condemnation? Seems curious if mankind’s will is truly free. Test it for yourself right now. See if you are free to live a life of no sin from this point forward. Even with the indwelling Holy Spirit you are not completely free from your sinful nature. Could someone list a few verses that explicitly teach that man’s will is free to love God apart from a supernatural work of the spirit? Or perhaps our natures are not free from bondage to sin.
The Calvinist / Jonathon Edwards answer is that God, though he does not tempt, instead ordained that all mankind is bound to sin so that God could demonstrate his grace is forgiving sinners. The beginning question and objection to this answer is can a God who has done this be truly good and could or should we then trust such a God? Ephesians 2:3 explains that our unregenerate nature was the reason for our sin and for God’s wrath against us.
I think the original question pertained to “evil” NOT “sin” – but again evangelicalism finds it all too hard to separate the two; thus the convoluted arguments (about God) that get trotted out to excuse or explain away what doesn’t need excusing… because the base assumptions are wrong, IMO.
IF you get off the fruitless Arminius / Calvin round-about the answer as I see it is in your own words “our very nature”. It is in the nature of man to err – THAT’S what “sin” means. Just because mankind can sin does NOT equate to mankind being evil by default – they are NOT one and the same.
*Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither consorters with prostitutes, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were made righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11)*
Paul obviously believed that sinners were not STUCK in their sin, but could be delivered from their former evil ways through Messiah Jesus, and God’s spirit.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Jeff is trying to pinpoint the exact origin of sin and evil itself. This is a very tough question. I don’t think we have enough knowledge to come to a complete answer. It’s like trying to figure out infinity. It just boggles the mind. I think what Jeff is asking is this: Seeing that we have a sinful nature, and there is evil in the world, where does it come from? We say that God is the source and creator of all things. So wouldn’t this mean that it comes from above?
Looking at these three verses, here are just a few thoughts and questions of my own.
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, etc.
Luke 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the son gives life to whom He will.
Luke 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the son to have life in Himself.
How does one bring a computer to life? It can only follow the commands that are programmed into it. Until it can actually produce a thought on it’s own, it is not alive.It says in the bible that our thoughts are not God’s thoughts, so somehow, God gave us the ability to generate our own thoughts and to create as well. We give life to the thought by acting upon it. As more and more people act upon the thought, it grows.
For example, someone comes up with the idea of a restaurant. It comes into existence when the person physically builds it. Even so, it can only continue to exist if people come to eat there. So, are human minds actually the source and cause of sin and evil?
I think you nailed it! And if we could just stop our quest at that point, and deal with the world and the evils therein on that basis, we would avoid the inevitable next question, which I think has no answer: Why did God give us that ability to choose evil?
In other words, to try and make God responsible in some way for Evil. I will not accept that proposition.
As someone in another forum pointed out, you have given life to your son. You may have taught him well and treated him well while he was a child and a teenager. So if your son leaves home, and begins to rape and murder women, you are not responsible just because you have him life, and knew that as a human being he had the potential for evil.
The heart of the question is who or what is the source / cause of original sin. The question is why does all mankind universally have a sinful nature? Mankind is sinful by our very nature and why is this? Or some may argue that we are not sinners by our nature.
Eve sinned by the way she gazed and lusted after the tree (according to Jesus) and she had the same DNA as Adam. Therefore God made man with an inclination toward sin. This encounter in the garden with Satan suggests God made man spiritually weak with a bent toward sin, but that is a long way off from total depravity.
As you know, this is a difficult topic, and the theories have been bandied to and fro for thousands of years. I am ‘inclined’ however to question the 'Therefore God… inclination" quotation, for the following reasons:
God declared everything to be ‘very good’ - this was after the 6th day. I think (and am willing to be corrected) that this was important to the surrounding cultures at the time it was written - cultures whose myths described ‘god’ battling ‘gods’, or a ‘god’ fighting chaos to bring order, or ‘god’ having to make a series of ‘emanations’ that eventuated in a demi-god of the Earth to reign over the evilness of matter. In Genesis, there is no struggle, there is a Word spoken; no battles; ‘matter’ is pronounced Good, and so is Adam.
I would think then, that instead of the word ‘inclination’ I would use the word ‘possibility’ - Adam and Eve were created free which entails the possibility of sin. Now it is a fine and perplexing question where the damned snake came from, and ehther A/E would have chosen to disobey God if there had been no specific tempter.
I always start getting confused when I try to go beyond the Story and start asking the Why’s of the whole thing - in other words, trying to understand the Mind of God beyond what He has chosen to tell/show us. It’s human nature I reckon, to just keep pushing the questions.
In any case the whole Garden story is fascinating and troublesome.
I would think then, that instead of the word ‘inclination’ I would use the word ‘possibility’ - Adam and Eve were created free which entails the possibility of sin. Now it is a fine and perplexing question where the damned snake came from, and ehther A/E would have chosen to disobey God if there had been no specific tempter.
Dave the reason i use the word “inclination” is by observing the way Eve reacts to gazing at the tree. She is actually lusting and as John defines all the sins of the world as the sin of the eyes, the flesh and the pride of life , she technically exhibits all three. Eve didn’t have the knowledge to make an informed free will choice IMHO therefore she must have had an inclination built in and she had Adam’s DNA.
As to where the snake came from? As Jesus said “not a sparrow falls without the Father” so Satan’s role was so material he couldn’t be there if God did not want him there.
Lastly i think everything was “very good” for God’s purposes.
Yes. Man has the inherent God-given ability to choose – hence the charge given to Israel… “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve…” – choices rendered consequences; this certainly was true for those under the charge of the OC… Lev 26:14-39; Deut 28:15-68.
Dave… what bearing might the “evil” of Gen 2:9 and Isa 45:7 have on your proposition of not accepting “in some way” such originating at God’s Hand?
Or, perhaps even likewise this: for “sin” to enter Adam’s world presupposes its prior presence, (along with pain and biological death).
- but I hope not. Just making the point that in order to understand the scripture, we have to start OUTSIDE the scripture and make some choices on how to proceed. The price for not doing that it the possibility of talking past one another.