The Evangelical Universalist Forum

God does not create, commit, or allow evil!

Steve… you are right about prepositions and conclusions.

Long story short… the ONE word in Hebrew translated “evil” is… < רָ֑ע > = ra’ — this ONE Hebrew word is variously translated by the TWO Greek synonyms <πονηρός> ponēros and <κακός> kakos. Thus all THREE are EQUIVALENT in their basic meaning. Again, no matter where these two Greek synonyms appear they both account for the one Hebrew word < רָ֑ע > = ra’.

Thus whether such be rendered evil / bad / wickedness / calamity / trouble / strife etc, where such is attributable to Yahweh in terms of bringing chastisement or retribution, such is the case, no matter how much it might offend certain sensitivities.

It should be noted

Where God is the subject of the verb < רָ֑ע > = ra’ his infliction of pain (evil) on people is not due to viciousness; it is the just judgment of sinners who do not respond to his call for repentance. In the Old Testament, God is not depicted as committing an immoral act when He does < רָ֑ע > = ra’ to the wicked. (adapted from ‘Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament’ Harris, Arch, Waltke. p. 855)

Dave, I Like it! :slight_smile: I actually found it to be quite a strange coincidence that you should post this, as I happened to be thinking along these same lines earlier. I believe this is the problem that Adam and Eve were confronted with in the Garden of Eden, the truth according to God(the tree of life) and the truth according to man(the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). In other words, it was the spiritual wisdom of God vs. the carnal knowledge of man telling us the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

Let me start this reflection, by sharing the Calvinist Got Questions take on Christian Science at:

What is Christian Science?

I also like the Protestant site Patheos article at Solo Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura. I don’t mind Sola Scriptura that much - it’s an established view. But I do share the author’s concerns with “Solo Scriptura”.

If we ignore what the author is saying, then we end up with what I call “Twilight Zone Theology”. Twilight Zone Theology can be very compelling. And can have a Biblical sound and compelling logical exegesis. Like:

Christian Science with Mary Baker Eddy, where all is mind and ideas
Puppet on the String theology - no free will and God manipulates everything
Universalism and P-Zombies, in the Left Behind Tribulation
Satan as the Cosmic Bad Dude, wrecking havoc on all
The garden of Eden had smoking herbs
The OT Nephilim were space aliens
Trump is the anti-Christ
Etc.

So to everyone out there. If we have no standards, other than the bible - then answer this. How do we distinguish between “normal” and “Twilight Zone” theology?

And what’s the difference between Hermano, blaming everything on the Devil - and this Woman’s take?

Let me guess :smiley: - by depending on other people’s biases, formulations, creeds, politically- or power-driven agendas? By Papal pronouncement? By Calvin’s creed written right after the burning of the witches in his area? (the witches are historic, I don’t think the Westminster Creed was written right before, but you get my point).

Standards? Whose? And what was their ‘standard’? Are you telling me that their standard was not the Bible? Am I to entrust myself and my free mind to - who? Who is going to decide for me?

Ach, there are no end to questions. I stand by my post quoting from Channing and Heschel. I do not believe they speak with forked tongue. :laughing:

To wit:
“We indeed grant, that the use of reason in religion is accompanied with danger. But we ask any honest man to look back on the history of the church, and say, whether the renunciation of it be not still more dangerous. Besides, it is a plain fact, that men reason as erroneously on all subjects, as on religion. Who does not know the wild and groundless theories, which have been framed in physical and political science? But who ever supposed, that we must cease to exercise reason on nature and society, because men have erred for ages in explaining them? We grant, that the passions continually, and sometimes fatally, disturb the rational faculty in its inquiries into revelation. The ambitious contrive to find doctrines in the Bible, which favor their love of dominion. The timid and dejected discover there a gloomy system, and the mystical and fanatical, a visionary theology. The vicious can find examples or assertions on which to build the hope of a late repentance, or of acceptance on easy terms. The falsely refined contrive to light on doctrines which have not been soiled by vulgar handling. But the passions do not distract the reason in religious, any more than in other inquiries, which excite strong and general interest; and this faculty, of consequence, is not to be renounced in religion, unless we are prepared to discard it universally. The true inference from the almost endless errors, which have darkened theology, is, not that we are to neglect and disparage our powers, but to exert them more patiently, circumspectly, uprightly. The worst errors, after all, having sprung up in that church, which proscribes reason, and demands from its members implicit faith. The most pernicious doctrines have been the growth of the darkest times, when the general credulity encouraged bad men and enthusiasts to broach their dreams and inventions, and to stifle the faint remonstrances of reasons, by the menaces of everlasting perdition. Say what we may, God has given us a rational nature, and will call us to account for it. We may let it sleep, but we do so at our peril. Revelation is addressed to us as rational beings. We may wish, in our to sloth, that God had given us a system, demand of comparing, limiting, and inferring. But such a system would be at variance with the whole character of our present existence; and it is the part of wisdom to take revelation as it is given to us, and to interpret it by the help of the faculties, which it everywhere supposes, and on which founded.”

So Dave, are you saying you accept each of these examples, as logical exegesis renderings - from Sola Scriptura? Why or why not? :wink:

Christian Science with Mary Baker Eddy, where all is mind and ideas
Puppet on the String theology - no free will and God manipulates everything
Universalism and P-Zombies, in the Left Behind Tribulation
Satan as the Cosmic Bad Dude, wrecking havoc on all
The garden of Eden had smoking herbs
The OT Nephilim were space aliens
Trump is the anti-Christ
Etc.

Sorry, Randy - I’m not going to follow your shiny object (this time - you may catch me at a weak moment in the future :smiley: )
I have no interest in those particular questions, really.
BTW I edited that post before you wrote.

Dave, it sounds to me as though you subscribe to epistemological skepticism (at least when it comes to religious knowledge). Is that accurate?

I myself do not think such skepticism is compatible with any sort of Christianity that commands its adherents to be martyrs. Who in his right mind would sacrifice his life for a Christ Who might exist, or for a creed that perhaps is true, or for an understanding of the Bible that possibly is correct, or for a Church that may be the true Church? For that matter, who would even bet five dollars on such things? And if a religious belief isn’t worth even five dollars, why bother with it at all?

A skeptic would of course say, “Look at all the mutually exclusive beliefs for which people have sacrificed themselves. They cannot all be true, therefore we can never know which if any of them is true.”

I would deny that “therefore”. Disagreement does not necessitate invincible uncertainty.

I think that skepticism collapses into solipsism, and perhaps worse.

DaveB quoted:

Between a rock and a hard place. I have come to disdain even ‘What We Believe’ sections of most ‘Christian sites’

But it also may be that my growth in Christ is always in such a state of flux… :confused:

Most of what I believe now I possibly would have labeled as heretical 20 years ago. :open_mouth:

G - actually, I’m not an epistemological skeptic, or solipsist. But neither am I an ‘organization man’, nor do I disparage the use of human reason (did you read the post above, following the words ‘to wit’? That’s where I stand.) Nor do I have an intellectual ‘pride’ or consider myself all that smart.

I do think that we can easily overlook the fact that each of us makes up our own mind - if we are adults - as to what ‘form’ our Christianity takes. I think there is room in our Father’s mansions for all kind of variations on a theme. If a group of people really wants to bind the conscience, will and intellect of OTHER people, beyond what the the word of God does - I recognize their right to do it, but it does not mean that everyone must march to their drum.

As to who will choose to die for Christ - we’ll know when the time comes. There will be surprises.

MM - well said!

**Again you have to disagree! **I gave you a counterexample. Do you disagree with Jesus for first commanding his disciples not to go to the Gentiles with the gospel, and later commanding them to do exactly that? If He understood differing needs according to the growth of the Kingdom, why couldn’t the Father have plans for eating from the two trees according to the maturing of Adam and Eve?

If eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is intrinsically evil, why do YOU think God planted the tree there? Just to tempt Adam and Eve? Hardly, since God tempts no one with evil (James 1:13).

Sorry Paidion , no offense, but where God leads us to go and preach the gospel is not a matter of one’s own spiritual life or death as in the case of Adam and Eve. I don’t see the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as good. Scripture does not say whether or not God planted it. It only says that it was there. On the other hand, you may be right. God may have planted it. However, it was a tree that obviously went south. To me, it is basically what Jesus talks about in the New Testament when He speaks of these two trees, the one that bears good fruit and the one that bears bad fruit.

On the other hand, you may be right. God may have planted it. However, it was a tree that obviously went south. To me, it is basically what Jesus talks about in the New Testament when He speaks of these two trees, the one that bears good fruit and the one that bears bad fruit.
LLC

Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am
Top
Print view this post

Could be the tree in Revelation at the end for the healing of the nations?

So, Dave, do you think the Bible contains the whole revealed truth for man? Or a least one component of truth (taking into account, the R.C. and E.O. church positions)?

Which brings up some interesting questions - for Dave and others. If we reject the insights of historical church fathers, theologians, philosophers, reformers and creeds:

Should we say that the **correct **understanding, is who puts forth the best argument - from scripture?
And if so, who is to be the **judge **of the contest and what is their criterion?
Or should we go back and visit the elephant and the blind men? :laughing:

But first, let’s have our distinguished biblical scholars, put forth their exegesis. Here are the topics for tonight. :laughing:

Christian Science with Mary Baker Eddy, where all is mind and ideas
Puppet on the String theology - no free will and God manipulates everything
Universalism and P-Zombies, in the Left Behind Tribulation
Satan as the Cosmic Bad Dude, wrecking havoc on all
The garden of Eden had smoking herbs
The OT Nephilim were space aliens
Trump is the anti-Christ

IMHO - ‘study everything, join nothing’ - sorta like that. If we reject without study all of the important people you just mentioned, we are no taking into account the wisdom and experience of those before us, and we will repeat the errors of the past. I am hugely indebted to those people - in fact, they are like my friends, and have led me to my current ‘position’.

The elephant works for me :slight_smile:

None taken. Nothing you wrote offended me.

And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:9)

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was good for food and pleasant to the sight, and so God must have “made it spring up.”

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, …she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Gen 3:6)

Paidion, Yes, God does plant vineyards, but as in the parables of the wheat and tares, the sower and the seed, and the vineyard, some of the crop goes bad. Hebrews 6:7-8 says this: “For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briars, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned,” Adam and Eve where deceived. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil looked good to them, but according to God, it was not. Jesus says this in speaking of the tree that bears bad fruit-Matthew 12:34 “Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil speak good things?” Such people are but wolves in sheep’s clothing. They act Godly on the outside, but they are evil inside. As 2 Timothy 3:5 states “having a form of godliness but denying its power, and from such people turn away.”

Randy, I suspect most people in this forum have something of a Protestant (non-Catholic/Anglican/Eastern), evangelical background or experience, and just take for granted the concept of “the priesthood of believers”:

The Bible passage considered to be the basis of this belief is the First Epistle of Peter, 2:9:

“[But you are not like that, for] you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

We all quote our favorite “experts” to support us. But I argue that in this forum, we should feel free to offer our own counter-arguments to experts with whom we disagree—even if our reasoning from the Scriptures is intuitive, philosophical, or unsupported by historical precedent or tradition.

As Christians, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us, to bear witness, and to liberate us from obstacles—to truth:

-“When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth.” John 16:13.
-“It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.” 1 John 5:6b.
-“The Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:17 .

(I don’t think the Church has “arrived” quite yet. But I think we are making progress in this evangelical universalist forum, especially about the true nature of God. :bulb: )

Blessings.

Hermano said:

I agree that’s the way, things are done here.

I mean:

We trust the Protestant reformers to pick the right Canon books. And even translate them correctly - more or less
But we **don’t **trust them, to give the correct theology. Or even a reasonable facsimile therein.

And I have seen some pretty strange Christian doctrines presented here. But when compared to things like Christian Science, they do appear to be normal - more or less. So I look at some folks here, as one of two possibilities (if “even if our reasoning from the Scriptures is intuitive, philosophical, or unsupported by historical precedent or tradition”):

They are ground-breakers, and the rest of the world - has to catch up
They got lost in the Twilight Zone and will hopefully find, their way back home.

I have encountered one Episcopal priest - a few years back. He gave a sermon and mentioned he was a universalist. He said he didn’t know how God would save everyone. But he believed that it was so. He didn’t try to fit a square peg, into a round hole. That is, he didn’t try to invent or theorize a way, God would save everyone. He was agnostic as to the how, but believed it was the end result.

And if we get two or more folks here (having completely different theologies, mind you)…Having “the Holy Spirit to guide us, to bear witness, and to liberate us from obstacles—to truth”…as far as Biblical matters go…then how does the common man, known who has the “best scriptural understanding” :question:

I think we “common men” look to Christian leaders (present and past) who have shown the fruit of the Spirit in their lives; we learn from them, as a starting point. Of course, the Shepherd of our souls will, in his own way, lead us to the best available fellowship.

And the Holy Spirit within us will guide us and “bear witness” to the truth of new ideas we are prayerfully considering. Jn 16:13, 1 Jn 5:6. And he may lead us to new fellowship more in harmony with his song of love and life, as it becomes available.

But I can testify that religion (which I am still being painfully purged of) long impeded my way to a hermeneutic of love. As R. Murray says,

Blessings.

I searched the first chapters of Genesis again, and I fail to find that God had said that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, was not good.

As I see it, God commanded them not to eat from it, not because its fruit was bad, but because they were not yet mature enough to gain the knowledge it provided. For that reason God knew that the death process would begin in them on the very day that they ate the forbidden fruit.
After they had matured, and eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have benefitted from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It would no longer have had the propensity of giving them death.

Knowing good and evil is not intrinsically bad. Indeed, having the ability to distinguish between them is the mark of a mature person:

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