I’m not sure what relevance this has to what I’ve posted.
I understand your concern, however I think it depends to a large degree where one goes from this standpoint.
All I’m saying is that in some instances, we call what is good, evil and vice versa precisely because we cannot always see the bigger picture adequately. I’m not saying we can never do that; particularly now with the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide. We just have to be careful not to let our flesh get in the way of true discernment, and that’s the case regardless which side of the fence one comes down on.
Derek,
Excellent. Also, thanks again for hanging in there. As I was driving home it hit me to convey to you how the only way for any of us to change our views is to be able to reflect them off of one another. So even if we don’t agree now, it doesn’t mean it’s waste of time. Thank you for all your time. I do take this seriously and I’m thankful with you being able to conduct the discussion even when views (as my own) concern you greatly.
OK, let’s try again:
Jesus made it quite clear that we already know what is good and what is not; it’s not complicated, and it’s not obscure.
I thought of how Jesus touched children – only to bless, to heal, to liberate, and to free – just the same as when he touched everyone else.
I thought of how he spoke to the parents of his day: However bad you are, you do know what it is to do something good for your child: it’s clear to you that giving him bread to nourish him, give him energy, and take away his hunger pangs, is good, whereas to give him a stone that will break his teeth and give him pain, is not good. Giving him an egg, containing protein and sulphur and vitamins for healing and growth is good, whilst a scorpion will cause him suffering and fear. Feeding him a fish to make him feel satisfied and make his brain and heart healthy is good; but what child could trust a parent who brought them a snake to hurt and poison them?
Eh? 
Guess my brain works differently… I tend to try to go to the heart of things… but then I also tend to go on tangents as well… so my apologies if I’m getting ahead of myself, or of anyone else for that matter. 
I agree, talking about how people have treated eachother poorly in the name of God throughout the centuries is certainly something worth discussing, but just to say, I do think what we believe about God, and our beliefs about how God sees and is involved in the world’s suffering and pain, does have some direct impact on how we treat eachother…
So discussing the underlying beliefs of those who have done harm to one another in the name of God makes sense, or at least I think it does, and I believe it ties in…
But then maybe one thing at a time…
Man, I’ve got a lot of catching up to do is this thread… quite a discussion we got going here. 
Derek, I’m sorry if this is stressing you out at all, bro. I can sense a little frustration on your end… But then I’m not sure, since it’s hard to read people online…
Hopefully we can all be cool with eachother here, and not fight or anything…
Blessings to you, and peace
Matt
PS Just to say, I’ve never been to Bible college or to seminary, never studied theology officially or anything like that… as I’ve said elsewhere on the forum, I’m just a janitor, not a scholar, I’m just a regular guy who’s a decent writer but not nearly as educated as some others here… so please be patient with me if I come off as kind of dense or airheaded…
Mel,
Great insight on the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. I suspect that there’s much there for us to explore. I also am advocating or shall I say presenting that same issue - it seems epistemology is a dog. How we know when something is good or evil is something that needs to be discussed for sure. As Derek rightly points out, RAPE IS EVIL. No doubt. In a perfect world there is no violence, rape murder or lying. For a Muslim to protect the honor of Islam they must react with violence, all while thinking they’re doing “good” like Paul who killed Christians. On the other hand when we think we’re doing good we might be doing evil. Follow your heart and trust the way of love.
So like Derek who denies a “full” pacifism, I’m not for violence. I would hold Derek’s hand in a rally screaming STOP THE VIOLENCE. I certainly, being a finite person, if I were governor would never issue rape as a means of correction. I simply think conditions as proven in philosophy can show that there are some worlds or instances where dynamics shift and thus we can falsify a dogma. But because of this issue of epistemology, things get very complicated.
With that said, I’d like to now turn to my more protagonist side and speak about what I do like:
The point of trajectory is something I’m highly attracted to. As some know, this issue of Jesus breaking the law is one of my own eye opening experiences I’ve had in my life. Bob’s paper found here A Case Against Jesus (A case against Jesus) is one of my all time favorite pieces. Primarily for the reasons Derek raises - Jesus was throwing thing upside down and it challenged the people of his time’s faith. This notion that as we move further in time we get a clearer picture of what is true and not true makes sense to me and so I hold Derek’s position as a highly possible alternative to the calvinistic (deterministic) position I’ve held. I simply think we all need to be able to construct and de-construct our own ideas to know them well enough to self-reflect on what really drives us. And this for me has been totally challenging and encouraging.
My hope in the future is to bring on Kevin Miller, Michael Hardin, Brad Jersak and Derek in another swing at the plate as this sort of prepares us for an in depth discussion on some of these ideas that Derek’s presented. I’ll work on getting that going and it would be great to see Derek get some support from other peers. Derek talking to 10 different people is difficult and it would be nice to co-ordinate a controlled discussion to voice those ideas.
That sounds cool 
Yeah, sorry Gene if I’ve contributed to derailing the discussion at all.
Maybe it’s my turn to sit at the back of the bus.
No problem at all. We all take take tangents and I don’t think anyone’s truly derailed the discussion. In fact that’s one of the treats of this discussion - it wasn’t hijacked - WELL GLORY TO GOD!!!
I’m thinking if we did a group discussion like that we could inform everyone who want’s to participate and then issue numbers to members so everyone takes a turn. Something like that might work.
Yeah, I have to admit that I have been getting a bit frustrated.
I do believe that God is in control. I trust and love God with all my heart. I want to affirm all of that.
But I do not want to affirm that rape is good. I don’t want to affirm that abuse is good.
I don’t want to tell someone who has been raped or abused that this was good, because it wasn’t.
In fact, I know that when a person who has been abused is told that what happened to them was good, this can really screw them up horribly.
I think that what we need to care about is not defending God (God can take care of himself), but rather we need to defend those who have been victimized, hurt,wounded, and condemned. We need to care for those who suffer. That’s the priority I see Jesus showing.
So if I get bent out of shape about this stuff it is because I care.
I’m not saying it is moral to stone people to death. 
I’m saying that large parts of the Bible claim that God uses (or used) evil (or what we would consider immoral ways) in dealing with people:examples being: the law of stoning people to death and requiring a blood covenant with his people that involved ‘hurting’ new born babies with circumcision. Are you saying circumcision is not of God?
I don’t understand Jesus to have broken any OT laws and he certainly didn’t correct anyone in saying that any of the laws were false. He corrected people’s understanding of the laws. The account of the woman caught in adultery, if it can be trusted (it doesn’t appear in the earliest manuscripts) doesn’t have Jesus saying ‘God never said you were to stone people to death’. Jesus opened their understanding of forgiveness and also upheld the Roman laws of that time, that prohibited the Jews stoning people to death. Forgiveness is better than carrying out the punishment as demanded by a law, but that doesn’t annul that law ie sin will still produce consequences that have to be dealt with at some point ( Matt 12:36).
Yes, genocide is evil and the bible does not command us to committ genocide. Jesus clearly teaches us to love our enemies and if we take this literally then we would not join armies or resist people like Hitler?? You mentioned in your next post to me, that ’ the way medicine is being practiced is evolving’ with respects to my traumatic experience and I would agree. It seems that how God is dealing with us and how He wants us to deal with each other is also ‘evolving’. In the OT the methods were not ‘spiritual’ i.e love your enemy. They were ‘evil’ methods for evil people it seems or imperfect methods for imperfect people. Jesus tells us to ‘be perfect’ and to be born again etc, and so the ‘perfect methods’ of loving your enemy make sense and are far superior to the OT methods: they are perfect as Jesus said.
I think you misunderstood me Derek. I advocate Jesus’ perfect laws of enemy love, not the OT laws of death. I’m just trying to reconcile these two ‘opposite’ ways. I’m not about to throw out large chunks of the bible, because that will cause lots of other problems it seems. Jesus and the apostles upheld the OT. They never said any of it was false but they did reveal that it was an imperfect system that was temporary and was leading to a perfect system which is in Christ.
The bible seems to be saying that God subjects creation to evil (frustration) and uses evil (punishments, discipline) in steering things towards certain outcomes, but that ultimately it’s all about permanent healing and so evil will one day no longer be a reality. only an idea.
I mentioned ‘circumcision’ to Derek in my previous post and thought it worth exanding on this. The NT upholds the reality of and acceptance of circumcision and so I would assert that this was a requirement of God prior to Christ’s new covenant. I don’t like it. I recoil from the very thought of it. 
Moses wasn’t too keen on it either. A bit of comfort is afforded in knowing that the cirumcision commanded by God is NOT what is practiced by Judaism today. It was only the removing of a little bit of the skin and not the radical procedure that is now. Jewish men were able to disguise the fact they were circumcised if competing in sports with gentiles (tying the skin in a way to make it seem longer ) and so rabbis developed more radical cuts to ensure they couldn’t cheat.
So we’ve got a command by God that requires hurting your tiny baby temporarily and thank God babies don’t remember the procedure. This is surely proof that God uses imperfect methods in dealing with us imperfect humans. God threatened to kill Moses’ sons if he didn’t have them circumcised. That sounds like a painful, evil punishment to me…
Cathrine,
You and I think alike. I agree with you regarding circumcision - conditions matter. Wouldn’t you agree Cathrine that if someone circumcised someone just to harm them is quite different than someone conducting the procedure for matters of faith? So I have difficulty accepting that “intentions” don’t matter.
I think this clarifies a distinction in the conversation that Derek is trying to spell out: there are things that are sinful ALL THE TIME, such as murder or rape. That is what Derek is getting at and it’s a good point.
The logic goes deeper and we ought to consider this:
If God can use evil to accomplish good then the question follows:
Can God himself DO evil to accomplish good.
This is where my logic fails: if accomplishing good justifies the act of using evil then it would seem to me that accomplishing good would justify DOING evil and if doing evil is justified then God can do evil.
That is the logic Derek is presenting for us who believe God has been using evil. Of course, I’m not settled with the framing of that because it assumes the justified act is evil and does not consider conditions. As I stated to Derek, if all killing is murder, then I’d rather have an atheist behind a gun to protect my daughter from abduction than a devoted Christian or dare I say, than God himself. For God is doing evil by allowing evil when he could have stopped it thus committing evil himself.
Sorry if I misunderstood you Catherine.
When you say “God uses (or used) evil” do you think that God does this today? Or does God no longer work this way?
Yes, I think we’re seeing things in a similar way. 
This is a very hard subject to get your head around. I’d much rather believe that God does not use evil and is always the healer, but I’m not about to throw away huge chunks of the bible just yet. I’ll no doubt be studying this subject for the next 40 years…
No worries.
That’s a harder question than I first thought. I don’t know… 
My instincts are saying ‘yes’. Whilst evil is still a done thing, and God allows evil, then I’d have to conclude He is still ‘using’ it or it is still necessary even. We’re still all dying a physical death and so surely that testifies to a continuing act of God (molecular entrophy??) that causes evil.
Yes, it is a hard question
One major difficulty is this:
every example you gave from the OT was not God doing things, it was *people *doing things. Not people sinning and God using that evil for good. Nope. It was people doing things that God (reportedly) commanded them to do. So if we wanted to say that God still worked this way today, would that mean that God may command you to do things that are evil? Should we then preach to people : “if you hear God tell you to do something that seems really wrong to you, that violates your conscience, do it. If you understand that Bible to tell you to do something that seems really wrong to you, that violates your conscience, do it. Don’t question, just obey”
I think that is pretty obviously a dangerous place to go. So it makes me think: maybe there’s something we are missing here.
Derek, thanks for reiterating that what drives you is siding with the abused, rather than telling them that the abuse is a good thing. I completely agree with that, and would hope that all who take evil seriously would agree. When I argued that pastorally, many suffering people express a need to believe their losses have some purpose, that’s not what I would declare to someone (like Lew Smedes) who is more comforted in understanding God as 100% in opposition to that evil. In face of the mystery, I would affirm them and side with what sustained their hope.
I share your concerns. God surely wants us to question Him or reason with Him, which is what we’re trying to do.
Are you saying that you do not believe that God commanded Abraham to kill his son? Paul affirms this account in Hebrews 11. Wouldn’t the holy spirit have put Paul right, if such a story were untrue? Are you also saying that God never commanded the circumcising of baby boys? I’m sure you can see how problematic this is going to be, if both the OT and the NT are full of untruths.
Dave, sorry for the late reply.
I wouldn’t say that God is punishing people “into submission”. That doesn’t seem to produce love. Kindness produces love. But I would say that wrath/punishment does have its place when arrogance (evil) binds someone. God deals with that in severe ways. So I would argue it’s always kindness that leads us to repentance but it’s not always kindness that breaks us of our arrogance. Sometimes it seems, though not all the time, punishment is necessary. But it seems logical to me that it can be and it’s at God’s discretion to employ such techniques.
I would agree with what follows as you spell out, that everything God does, be it severe or sweet, is for the purpose of justice – to restore.
My point in showing the two propositions is as follows:
a) God pays 7x what sins deserve is to show that God is not about balancing the scales and therefore his justice is seeking something other than retribution.
b) God pays 0x what sins deserve is to show that God is not about balancing the scales and therefore his justice is seeking something other than retribution.
My point being his accomplishing justice MUST be to restore – it cannot be about balancing the scales if we indeed take A and B seriously.
However, here is where Derek and I disagree – I would say God can use punishment and retribution in order to accomplish his goal of achieving justice (restoration).
I’ll post up later a quote from Thomat Talbott regarding the difference between laws and requests. I don’t have the book in front of me and I don’t care to misquote him.
Hope that helps Davebo.
Hi auggy,
Thanks for the reply. There are still some things I don’t get about your viewpoint.
If God’s way of dealing with people bound by evil is through wrath and punishment then what is the point of the cross?
I think that by His stripes we are healed. He took the punishment, pain etc. so we could be set free. If those bound by evil need to receive their own stripes to be healed then what was accomplished on the cross? It seems according to your view that maybe Jesus’ stripes plus possibly our own are necessary to bring about full restoration.
Also, I believe in this age / life that we are all extremely clouded by or bound up by evil - after all this is the present evil age. So according to your view I will most likely need to face wrath and punishment in order to be set free. Are you are expecting to receive wrath and punishment and if not then why? Are you completely unbound by evil already? What’s the criteria for receiving grace, mercy, and healing instead of wrath and punishment?
I’m interested in your response because I too used to think exactly as you have stated but it no longer makes sense to me.