Theory on the origin of evil

No Username Found said:

Evil is not a thing

Click to expand...

"Evil is not a thing" = Evil is nothing

No Username Found said:

Nothing is entirely evil

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

Why do you think they would be the same thing?

Click to expand...

I cant' really explain it, something I was reading in that post, in conjuction with some other material sparked that thought...I'm not making any definitive claims on it though. Maybe, when you state that evil (or darkness) is in the wake of the Creator's movement (something like that) and they were "created first", but, as you pointed out, not carbon based...and they are invisible...and so are the forces we call "physics", etc...

The Righterzpen said:

If angels were created before "darkness was upon the face of the deep" than where did that darkness come from? That question is the OP of this whole thread.

Click to expand...

Correction: The question of the Op is where did evil come from? Darkness represents an absence of light. Hence we cannot see in the dark.

"We should consider that the angels are watching something about to be played out in a temporal reality on earth that will inform them of Who God is and also inform them of who they are in relation to Him."

Click to expand...

This assumes that angels are unaware that they are created entities; which categorically can not be true. We know they are aware they are created entities because there are angels who did not transgress.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how what I said was received so as to imply I was assuming that angels didn't know they were created. I simply meant to imply that the angels had something to learn about God which would be revealed in mankind.

God revealing Himself to what ever is witnessing His creating, is beyond the point of the question at hand. God telling angels "Look I'm showing you this." doesn't answer the question of where darkness came from.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the darkness being described in Genesis since the Light of revelation is going to reveal what cannot be seen in the darkness. Keeping in mind that the Knowledge of God is about the knowing of His Person as in knowing Him personally. Hence the knowledge of God through His Christ is a revelation to those who were in ignorance/darkness. Your asking where the darkness came from is like asking where the ignorance came from. Suppose I introduced you to someone you didn't know. Where did the ignorance of not knowing them come from?

How'd Satan become vain? If the only other entities in the environment are God and other obedient angels, the only other element present is darkness. Satan's fall has to be linked to that darkness because there is nothing else it can be linked to. There's no darkness in God and there's no darkness in these other angels because they have not transgressed.

Click to expand...

Again, the darkness is ignorance. All angels share the same ignorance of God. Satan was the most beautiful and gifted of the angels according to scripture. This is what made him the most vulnerable to vanity. It does not make sense that vanity would first appear in the lesser endowed angels in comparison to others who were more gifted. It makes more sense that it would appear first in the most gifted and beautiful angel.

Vanity is about pride and about shame. Vanity is measuring one's self in comparison to others. Notice that when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened they were ashamed they were naked whereas before they were not. Their innocence of such things had gone.

Satan became vain because he took for granted his gifts that God had given him, (in vainglory), He gradually began to feel he had deserved them or earned them and also became unthankful accordingly. Essentially Satan began to desire worship. The other angels beneath him would begin to feel put down by him as if forced to acknowledge his status in a personal way. Nonetheless, through gaining a following, he apparently convinced a third of the angels to follow him. The way darkness/ignorance of God is related to this, has to do with understanding that God is not a boss at the top getting to tell everybody else what to do. God is at the bottom upholding all things and is a servant to all. Hence if the tyrant type of image of God is believed upon, vanity will promote a dog eat dog self serving world.

I believe you're correct that Satan envied Adam and if Adam was really content in his station, he never would have sinned; but that's a different issue.

Click to expand...

Adam was content until it was suggested that he was too stupid to know how he was being played. Adam sinned because he listened to the woman rather than trusting his own judgment.

Yet Satan envied Adam because Adam was created in God's image - thus the true envy of Satan was God Himself!

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think its' the same envy that wants to see innocence destroyed in others. A young person who has had sex tends to brag and treat the virgin like the virgin is immature and missing out on something.

The phrase "made (him / Christ) a little lower than the angels" is only used 2 places in the Scripture. One is Old Testament, one is New.

Psalm 8:5
In the Old Testament the word translated as "angel" is actually the word "Elohim" So what that verse is saying is that Christ was not made lower than the angels, he was made lower than God (the Father). Thus why Adam is created in the image of God. That image is Christ.

Hebrews 2:7-10
In the New Testament the word "angel" is the Greek word "angelos" (which is a Hebrew transliteration of "angel").

Now the word "angelos" is also translated "messenger" and is used in both contexts for not only "non carbon based entities called angels" but also for human "messengers". This is true of both OT and NT.

Click to expand...

Angels were the go between God and mankind. Consider Jacobs ladder with the angels going up and down the ladder from heaven to earth and visa versa. And also consider that the angels administered the Old Testament, hence messengers.

Verse 7 though is directly referencing Psalm 8:5. So we know that even though the Greek there does use the term "angelos" it is referencing "Elohim" back in the Hebrew. Now verse 9 uses the same phrase "made lower than the angels"; yet the end of that verse tells us what it means - "that he may taste death for every man."

Jesus referred to himself as "the son of man", because His purpose was to redeem sinners and those verses in Hebrews 2 are all talking about Christ receiving honor and glory because He obeyed the Father and became subject to the death that we deserve.

Click to expand...

This is true, he offered himself as a sacrifice for our sins, but not because he felt we deserved to die. This is a different subject which has much to do with culpability and being deceived.

The Righterzpen said:

I guess I can see where one may draw that conclusion; but I think God assigns angels to far greater and more noble tasks than just "holding the universe together". They are "ministering spirits" - some times they protect us. I don't understand a whole / all of what they "do", but they are certainly important in the spiritual realm of God's economy. I guess, one of those questions we get answers for on the other end of eternity.

I will say though, posting this thread and the responses I got from most people have given me a lot of things to look at, ponder and consider. As well as other things to study out. It also has helped me to solidify what the theory is and why I think it's plausible that this theory could actually be true. It is the best explanation for the question of where "evil" came from that I've ever encountered anywhere. Or at least it makes the most sense to me.

And I was just mulling the question around in my head one night (some probably 10 years ago) when the "to every action is an equal and opposite reaction" suddenly popped in there. Then I started thinking about that - well.... is that actually the answer?

And so; wa la theory is born.

Now is it true or is it not; I don't know? But is is the best explanation I've ever encountered.

I'd posted my theory on Fan Fiction a couple of years ago now and have gotten some good feedback on it. Some people said this was the most genius explanation they'd ever seen.

But, I find that happens to me with enough frequency that I have to step back and ask - well God, if these connections ultimately come from You; why me? Why would You convey these truths to me? I'm glad You to answer my questions; but I'm not anybody with any credentials or any reason I should know this stuff? I'm a disabled veteran with a BA in psychology. I have a lot of time on my hands so I do a lot of research; mostly Bible study, history, archeology type stuff.

So, thus is what I throw out there and see what kind of input I get.

I like when the theology / questions / pondering / conversation gets deep.

So thus, I appreciate you listening to my ramblings! LOL

(steps off soap box)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's been a productive thread, thank you...and I will get around to reading the OP soon!

Cis.jd said:

no. I don't go for "the devil made me do it". Hitler's doing was his own decision rooted from his pov's and other things that where built from his life. "The devil made me do it" is one of the worse excuses in existence today.

Click to expand...

The devil is a deceiver. He makes people do things they otherwise would not do by deceiving them. If we read Hitlers writings such as Mien Kampf, they reveal the lies he was believing in. 2 Corinthians 11:3.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The Righterzpen said:

If angels were created before "darkness was upon the face of the deep" than where did that darkness come from? That question is the OP of this whole thread.

Click to expand...

I've been watching this interesting thread. Please indulge me for a short post of another view. You got it. You just need to connect a few dots.
The structure of the spiritual realms is spirits themselves. So, the bossom of Abraham or Abraham's soul, structures the place of peace and rest in Hades. It's better described as 'likeness'. Likeness to Abraham draws their souls to Abraham.

In the beginning God created. As you mentioned what was created is well described as not God. This is the angelic realm with their limited knowledge of God according to their particular qualities but as yet God hasn't revealed Himself fully. They are at the same time "the heavens" and the darkness. No evil in that none have been given the opportunity to refuse God. Then God said "Let there be light." And 'there' was light. Where? The heavens. Then God saw that the light was good. Judgement. The Angels make their eternal choice having received divine revelation. The good who choose God are Day, and those who choose themselves and lack good which means evil are Night. Divine Revelation is followed by judgement. If God has given Himself fully and is rejected what more can He do? Thus the unpardonable sin.

The light is Christ. The good angels conquered the evil angels with the blood of the lamb and 'their' testimony.

May the Lord continue to bless you.

childeye 2 said:

The devil is a deceiver. He makes people do things they otherwise would not do by deceiving them. If we read Hitlers writings such as Mien Kampf, they reveal the lies he was believing in. 2 Corinthians 11:3.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Click to expand...

Yeah, "the devil made him do it" is a bad argument imo. Hitler 100% to blame and was full in control over his decisions.

The Righterzpen said:

Well, I don't see this as Scripturally sound; so we depart here on differences in belief systems.

Click to expand...

Can you provide an example as to why it is not scripturally sound? Scripturally speaking?

Tone said:

"Evil is not a thing" = Evil is nothing

Click to expand...

I am not saying that evil doesn't exist. Evil is a very real privation of goodness. Just like a hole in a sweater exists. But evil cannot exist if there is no good to corrupt. Here is an excerpt from a research paper I wrote in seminary:

If God is omnibenevolent, evil cannot be within Him nor can it be emanated or created by Him. As the supremely sovereign creator, what then is "evil"? The skeptic will argue that if God is the creator of everything in existence and all things were created through Him (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11) and evil is something that exists, God must have created evil too. After all, it is written, “…I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things” (Isa. 45:6-7). It seems as though that scripture confirms the skeptic’s claim. Furthermore, denying either God or evil leads to dualism or pantheism.

Thomas Aquinas responds the Summa Theologica, on question XLVIII. Aquinas proposes that "evil" is not a substance but an absence or corruption of substance. More specifically, Aquinas states that "evil is signified as the absence of good." It is not enough to say that evil is merely an "absence." Rather, it is a privation or absence of something that should be present. This definition by no means implies that evil does not exist, or we fall into a pantheistic conclusion. Rather, as Norman Geisler explains, "Evil is a real lack, privation, or corruption of a good thing. That is, evil does not exist in itself: evil exists only in a thing or substance – and all things God made are good" (Geisler 2011, 18). Therefore, God is the creator of everything in existence. However, since evil is not a thing but a privation of good, God did not create evil. Instead, good must exist to make evil possible. Furthermore, by comparing evil to moth holes, Geisler concludes that nothing can be entirely evil. Moth holes can corrupt a sweater, but a wholly moth-eaten garment is just a hangar in the closet (Geisler 2011, 19). Satan, who by his nature, is utterly evil in a moral sense (John 8:44) is still good in a metaphysical sense because Lucifer was an angel of God. Morally, it is possible for a mere human to be utterly depraved, yet metaphysically still be good in that they are still image bearers of God.

Cis.jd said:

Yeah, "the devil made him do it" is a bad argument imo. Hitler 100% to blame and was full in control over his decisions.

Click to expand...

Respectfully that's not the issue. I'm saying he was deceived. I'm saying the info he was basing his decisions on was false. His words in Mein Kampf are clearly carnal vanity.

The Righterzpen said:

Origins of Evil Theory

I've often wondered about the origins of evil?

Click to expand...

Here is my "theory" on evil.


THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

What is “The Problem of Evil”? The problem of evil is not just simply that evil exists. Rather, it is the compatibility between both God and evil that drives the conundrum. Many theologians such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and C.S. Lewis have had variations to the problem of evil. However, simply stated, "If God is able (omnipotent), He could stop evil. If God is willing (omnibenevolent), He will desire to stop evil. Furthermore, if God is omniscient, He would have been aware that evil would exist and could have prevented it. Thus, if God is both willing and able to stop and prevent evil, why does evil exist? (Keeft and Tacelli 1994, 128). Removal of one aspect seems to solve the issue. Accepting evil and denying God leaves atheism. Pantheism is the product of accepting God and denying evil. Theism, more specifically monotheism which is centered on an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, are uniquely left struggling to reconcile the compatibility with the all-powerful and evil. The Bible does not remain silent on this issue. Examples may be found in Job, Habakkuk (Hab. 1:2-4), Ecclesiastes (Eccl. 4:1-3), and Psalms (Pss. 10; 22;83). Many attempts to address the issue seem to require a reduction or removal of least one of God's qualities making it "perhaps the most severe of all the intellectual problems facing theism" (Erickson 1998, 386). Examples include the removal of God’s omnipotence (Finitism), modification of God’s omnibenevolence (determinism), or denial of evil’s existence (pantheism) (Erickson 1998, 386-394). To address this issue, we must first understand what evil is and where it originates.

WHAT IS EVIL?
If God is omnibenevolent, evil cannot be within Him nor can it be emanated or created by Him. As the supremely sovereign creator, what then is "evil"? The skeptic will argue that if God is the creator of everything in existence and all things were created through Him (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11) and evil is something that exists, God must have created evil too. After all, it is written, “…I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things” (Isa. 45:6-7). It seems as though that scripture confirms the skeptic’s claim. Furthermore, denying either God or evil leads to dualism or pantheism.

Thomas Aquinas responds the Summa Theologica, on question XLVIII. Aquinas proposes that "evil" is not a substance but an absence or corruption of substance. More specifically, Aquinas states that "evil is signified as the absence of good." It is not enough to say that evil is merely an "absence." Rather, it is a privation or absence of something that should be present. This definition by no means implies that evil does not exist, or we fall into a pantheistic conclusion. Rather, as Norman Geisler explains, "Evil is a real lack, privation, or corruption of a good thing. That is, evil does not exist in itself: evil exists only in a thing or substance – and all things God made are good" (Geisler 2011, 18). Therefore, God is the creator of everything in existence. However, since evil is not a thing but a privation of good, God did not create evil. Instead, good must exist to make evil possible. Furthermore, by comparing evil to moth holes, Geisler concludes that nothing can be entirely evil. Moth holes can corrupt a sweater, but a wholly moth-eaten garment is just a hangar in the closet (Geisler 2011, 19). Satan, who by his nature, is utterly evil in a moral sense (John 8:44) is still good in a metaphysical sense because Lucifer was an angel of God. Morally, it is possible for a mere human to be utterly depraved, yet metaphysically still be good in that they are still image bearers of God.

WHERE DID EVIL COME?
The problem associated with the origin of evil stems from God's perfect nature. The skeptic would argue that if God is a perfect being, it would be impossible for Him to create anything with imperfections. Because human beings are imperfect creatures who cause evil, no such God exists. After all, it is also written: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" (Matt. 7:18). Citing the moral argument, I would immediately respond to the skeptic is that to admit evil’s existence is to imply an objective moral law exists. If such law exists, there must be an objective moral lawgiver who is otherwise known as God (Craig 2008, 25). This argument in itself should be enough to de-fang the skeptical position. However, it fails to address the issue for the theist. Thomas Aquinas has more to say about the issue.

Again in the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas responds in question XLIX titled "The Cause of Evil" by incorporating "free will" into the equation. Referencing Matthew 7:18, Aquinas proposes that God, who is a perfect being, cannot be the direct cause of evil and can only create perfect creatures. Free will is one of the perfections that He gave to humans. Free will is a good quality in itself. However, one of the byproducts of free will is the possibility of using it for evil. As a result, God would, therefore, be the cause for making the existence of evil a possibility. This suggestion, of course, does not absolve humanity's responsibility for evil as suggested by determinism. Humans endowed with free will are responsible for the actuality of evil's existence. As a privation of good, evil is the product of using free will to choose separation from God who is the source of goodness. Thus, it is possible for God's perfect creations to create evil.

WHY DOES EVIL STILL PERSIST?
We now understand that evil is a privation of goodness and that this privation is a product of free will. We also know that God is responsible for making evil a possibility. However, as a result of their abuse of free will, humans are responsible for making the existence of evil reality. Now, we can address the issue of evil's persistence. If God is all powerful and all good, He would have both the capability and desire to stop evil. So why does evil still exist? How do we answer this question without reverting to finitism?

Many theologians seem to suggest that even an omnipotent God has limitations. "By [God's omnipotence] we mean that God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power" (Erickson 1998, 247). There seem to be two types of limitations to God's omnipotence. First, God has natural limitations. He cannot do what is contradictory to His nature. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), sin (James 1:13), deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:11-13) or force willful obedience (Matt. 23:37). In this case, the omnipotence of God does not mean that He can do anything. God’s omnipotence means that He can do anything that is possible (Geisler 2011, 37). As long as we have free will, God cannot remove evil by forcing us to choose goodness. This coercion would be a contradiction that goes against his nature. C. S. Lewis states, "I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully, ‘All will be saved.' But my reason retorts, ‘Without their will, or with it?' If I say ‘without their will' I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say ‘With their will,’ my reason replies, ‘How if they will not give in?’” (Lewis 2001, 106-7).

Second, God can put limitations on himself by His choosing. The most notable of His self-imposed restrictions can be found in the incarnation. For it is written, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross!” (Phil. 2:6-8).

In light of these limitations, we can conclude that the destruction of evil would be an action which is contradictory to free will. It is possible for God to destroy evil by destroying free will. However, this will result in a world void of any moral value. It is comparable to a wind-up doll. By pulling the string, the toy robotically says, "I love you." However, this is merely a pre-programmed response which renders any value to be insignificant. Unlike the wind-up doll, when a spouse looks you in the eyes and says "I love you," the value lay in the fact they are willingly choosing to love. God is love, and it is God's desire that He is loved in return (1 John 4:8). However, one of the self-imposed limitations of God is that by giving humans free will, He cannot force us to return that love freely. C.S. Lewis states, “Merely to over-ride a human will…would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo” (Lewis 1976, 12). Evil cannot be destroyed without the collateral destruction of free will. However, evil will be overcome (Rom. 8:18-21; Rev. 21:1-4) by separating the good from the evil (Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15) and that this separation will be based on the individual’s choosing (Matt. 23:37; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

DOES EVIL HAVE A PURPOSE?
If God is omnibenevolent, He would have a good purpose for everything (Rom. 8:28). However, as described in the introduction, what good purpose can be found when a father is watching helplessly as a terminal illness takes the life of his young child? Can we conclude that because there seems to be purposeless suffering in the world that God cannot be all good? I would first state that just because we, as limited, finite beings, cannot fathom a purpose for some evil, does not mean none exists. It does not prove God to be malevolent. Instead, it demonstrates our ignorance. Seemingly purposeless evil has been a topic that I have been working to address since early 2014 when my wife was killed as a result of an apparently purposeless evil. Since then, I have found several possibilities to reconcile this issue, and Erickson has outlined many of them. First, suffering as a direct result of divine retribution, such as that mentioned in Isa. 45:6-7, is not evil at all. Instead, it is a divine judgment that God uses to correct much like a parent disciplining a child (Heb. 12:6). Second, evil can be a byproduct of good. We see this in nature through food chains. It is good for a lion to eat a zebra for its survival. However, it is not necessarily good from a zebra’s perspective (Erickson 1998, 395). Third, God can redeem evil for good purposes. The story of Joseph is an example of such redemption (Gen 50:20).

Lastly, evil has the purpose of testing disinterested faith. Gustavo Gutiérrez, in his book On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, describes disinterested faith as “[believing] in God without looking for rewards and fearing punishments” (Gutiérrez 1987, loc. 271). Job's situation was a test of disinterested faith. Gutiérrez explains, “It is impossible for the satan to deny that Job is a good and devout man. What he questions is rather the disinterestedness of Job’s service of God, his lack of concern for a reward. The satan objects not to Job's works but their motivation" (Gutiérrez 1987, loc. 318).

I find this concept of disinterested faith most promising. As stated in the wind-up doll analogy, free will is a critical requirement for a meaningful relationship with God to be possible. However, taking it further, let's say we had the freedom to choose to love someone who was perfect and without flaw. With nothing preventing us from doing so, loving that person would be inevitable. Not to say that the love would have no meaning. The love shared between the triune God is without flaw, and yet it is meaningful. However, seemingly unavoidable. The same holds true for our love for God. Even with free will, if nothing exists to prevent humanity from loving God, there is no choice!

The skeptic may argue that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, he would have foreseen the existence of evil and would have the desire and capability of preventing it. The skeptic will conclude that because God seemingly failed to anticipate or avoid the existence of evil proves that no such God exists. My response to the argument is simple. In regards to good and evil, free will is merely the ability to make decisions. However, Evil exists to make a choice possible. Therefore, a world void of evil would be a world void of any moral choices. Thus, rendering it inferior.

Stuff has origins. A thing has an origin. If you find a thing you can ask, "Where did this thing come from?". The absence of a thing, however, is just that--an absence. If you open up a box and there's nothing inside, asking "where did that empty space come from?" might be an odd question.

Light exists, it can be measured, it has real existence. Darkness, on the other hand, doesn't exist; darkness is simply the absence of light.

Likewise, good exists; good is intrinsic to the eternal nature of God. So when God made all things He called all things, "exceedingly good".

Evil, on the other hand, isn't a thing. Evil doesn't have its own existence. Evil is the absence of good, evil is the malformation of good, evil is a distortion of good.

This is how the ancient fathers of the Church spoke of evil as well. And this is important, because Cosmic Dualism (that there are two equal cosmic powers in constant struggle, Good and Evil) was rejected as heretical, this was a doctrine of the Zoroastrians and later the Manichaeans.

So evil doesn't have an origin, evil is what creation looks like absent of the good. When the good is removed, or the good is distorted, twisted, or misshapen--that is evil.

The devil is evil not because there is a cosmic principle called "Evil" working through him, or of which he is the source (that would be heresy); the devil is evil because the devil rebelled against God. Because, again, evil is what creation looks like absent of the good--and the devil, for all his bluster, is nothing more than a fallen creature.

-CryptoLutheran

No Username Found said:

Here is my "theory" on evil.
My response to the argument is simple. In regards to good and evil, free will is merely the ability to make decisions. However, Evil exists to make a choice possible. Therefore, a world void of evil would be a world void of any moral choices. Thus, rendering it inferior.

Click to expand...

Let's first come to terms. The "will" is the faculty by which we reason and make choices. The definition you give for a "free" will in your post is a moral/immoral application inferring that evil exists so that mankind has a choice between good and evil to do immoral or moral actions. This leaves out any consideration that the will itself is either moral or immoral according to the spiritual content of the soul. The problem with this concept is that we were made in God's image, meaning that we were given His Character which can only will the good without any deliberation.

For example: A bad true cannot grow good fruit and a good tree cannot grow bad fruit. The condition of the tree determines the fruit and not any ability to choose between being one or the other. In fact any freedom to choose to do evil should not even be considered an ability, but rather a disability. This is why the bible speaks of corruption and renewal. The first Adam was a corruptible soul made of the earth, while the second Adam (Christ) is a quickening Spirit.

The Righterzpen said:

Except the Scripture tells us to interpret it against itself not against what an ancient culture thought of it. Isaiah 28:10+

Click to expand...

I don't see how this informs us how to interpret Gen 1. this passage too is written in block logic.

The Righterzpen said:

We in this day and age have access to the acquisition of information that no other generation has EVER had in the past! That is a HUGE blessing.

Yet, if what you say is true, than anyone who does not have the education or access to the ancient texts could not be saved and this is not true! Knowledge of Greek and Hebrew doesn't save anyone. God does.

Let us not be vain in our gifted position of 21st century technology.

Click to expand...

and what of the people 3500 years ago? You claim I don't give anyone a chance to interpret it correctly but what about those 3500 years ago? what chance did they have? Was God not responsible with this text to them or was this just meant for those 3500 years in the future? Why would the meaning of the text change 3500 years ago vs today?

The OP is not really about salvation so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I don't care what language you are using if we isolate the creation account I don't think that's enough scripture to show salvation even though the text in itself is a type of salvation allegory. you have to have a pretty firm grasp of the covenants to pick up on this allegory itself. This isn't about if you don't know Hebrew/Greek you can't have salvation but if we are looking for answers outside of text (and salvation) then we need to dive deep into the text otherwise you're just using it as a prooftext.

The Righterzpen said:

And Praise the Lord because God transcends culture and time I can do this.

Click to expand...

God does, but written scripture does not, it is static and remains in a static position so whatever it was it still is and the meanings are not dynamic. There is no "new revelation" in scripture there is only the same revelation newly found. The idea it points to (salvation) transcends culture but before we understand that idea we must interpret the nontranscendent words and to do this we must enter the space of the ancient 3500 years ago.

The Righterzpen said:

The obvious answer to "who created formless universe" is "God".

Click to expand...

but you are answering something never asked. in a vacuum, the creation account does present a void in a preexistent state (in step logic) but since the purpose of the text has nothing to do with who created the void, any question regarding it is going to be in error. block logic doesn't ask this question nor was it an issue for the ancient mind. Within block logic, the information it presents is only a concern within the block and the point it's making, everything outside the point has no meaning. If we force it to work outside the block, it will have wide conflicts and be unreconcilable. We see this today when people force a literal 6-day creation and each day completely literal. This creates all kinds of conflicts because the literal account is forced and all we do is end up defending something that has nothing to do with the account.

The Righterzpen said:

Where did the darkness come from? That is the question this theory is addressing.

All truth still comes from God, whether it's in the form of "step logic" or "block logic", "scientific method" or what ever doesn't matter.

"Step logic has nothing to do with the text." - according to who?

Click to expand...

block logic is how it is written because it is how Moses thought and how the Israelites processed information. Block logic/step logic is not about what is right or wrong it is about how the information is organized and presented. Once we know how it's organized we can better understand it's meaning.

The Righterzpen said:

If God uses "step logic", why would that automatically be wrong to use as a method of Scriptural research? "Step logic" does not negate what you are saying about salvation being attested to in the text. There's a lot of truth buried in the Bible and this lends itself to a variety of applications to uncover it.

Click to expand...

God transcends these things, he uses God-logic and I'm not even going to pretend to know how that works. words however are fixed in the context they are written in. when truth is buried we must dig through the context which very much involves how the audience thought and processed information.

Cis.jd said:

I don't know where evil originates, my assumption is that evil came to be due to man. Take man away from this world and all you have is nature. The way animals kill each other for food is completely sadistic, you have eagles throw sheep of mountains, wild dogs eating their pray alive from the rear to the head, chimps splitting their live pray in half-- yet it's not "evil" to these species because this is how they live in order to carry on the natural cycle for all life on this planet.

Regardless, just because we can't be sure where it originates doesn't mean satan should fill in the gaps to answer for the cause of a man's carnage. By that reason alone then we aren't completely sinners because we were just fooled by the one orchestrating it.

Click to expand...

I don't think I asked you where evil originates...I believe I asked you WHERE you think it comes from.

You've made a couple of incorrect statements up above and it makes me wonder if you've ever pondered evil.

First of all, if you remove man from the earth, there would still be evil. What do you suppose evil means? Evil is the opposite of good.

Evil also exists in nature,,,I had quoted Romans 8 but I guess that didn't mean anything to you...you should read it again. Romans 8:19-22.

The only reason I'm writing is because I believe that if a person understands evil, he will also understand the nature of humanity better and also the entire New Testament.

His student said:

While I don't claim to be a Calvinist - I don't believe it does.

Click to expand...

You don't believe a god that chooses who will go to heaven and who will go to hell does not change the character of God? How would that be a loving, merciful and just god? A god that would arbitrarily send someone to hell based on absolutely nothing sounds like a god that is all love to you?
1 John 4:8 states not only that God loves His creatures but that HE IS LOVE. His very being is love...as Jesus proved.

But regardless of your (incorrect IMO) opinion of what Calvinism teaches - does your hatred of your Calvinist brethren run so deep that you can't even let them comment on a thread having nothing to do with Calvinism without your taking them to task on what they believe in other areas?

Click to expand...

What did I post that is incorrect?
Yes sir. The way you understand God changes everything. In the calvinist belief God created everything and planned everything...which would include evil.

And I don't hate my calvinist brethren,,,I do NOT agree with any of John Calvin's theology or that of Luther or Knoxx or any of those that believe in this god they've invented and was not known to exist before 1,500 AD.

By the way, as you say, you were very much bringing your theology into play when you addressed me the first time.

Click to expand...

Of course, my God is the true God,,,so my theology is correct. My God loves His creation, has mercy on us all, and is a just and holy God.

Did you mean to say "evil was not always existent?

Click to expand...

You didn't post what I wrote but I DO NOT KNOW if evil always existed because I don't know from where it generated.

I would say that most of us agree that God has always had the knowledge of good and evil. But not that evil itself always existed.

Click to expand...

If God had the knowledge of evil,,,then it must have existed. We cannot think of something that does not exist, even in our human finite thinking.
However, with God anything is possible.

I don't think the question does remain open - at least to many people. Evil is the result of rebellion against God's expressed will.

Click to expand...

And what caused the rebellion??

As I told The Righterzpen, I'm leaving town for awhile. Have fun on the thread.

Click to expand...

No Username Found said:

Not necessary. Just a one force/power equal to and at odds with another force/power. In regards to the OP, it was suggesting that evil is a force/power that is "an equal and opposite reaction to" good.

Click to expand...

Right. Since we're speaking about God,,,it would refer to God...it also could refer to any force that is dual in nature...
(a good god and a bad god).

No Username Found said:

I am not saying that evil doesn't exist. Evil is a very real privation of goodness. Just like a hole in a sweater exists. But evil cannot exist if there is no good to corrupt. Here is an excerpt from a research paper I wrote in seminary:

If God is omnibenevolent, evil cannot be within Him nor can it be emanated or created by Him. As the supremely sovereign creator, what then is "evil"? The skeptic will argue that if God is the creator of everything in existence and all things were created through Him (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11) and evil is something that exists, God must have created evil too. After all, it is written, “…I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things” (Isa. 45:6-7). It seems as though that scripture confirms the skeptic’s claim. Furthermore, denying either God or evil leads to dualism or pantheism.

Thomas Aquinas responds the Summa Theologica, on question XLVIII. Aquinas proposes that "evil" is not a substance but an absence or corruption of substance. More specifically, Aquinas states that "evil is signified as the absence of good." It is not enough to say that evil is merely an "absence." Rather, it is a privation or absence of something that should be present. This definition by no means implies that evil does not exist, or we fall into a pantheistic conclusion. Rather, as Norman Geisler explains, "Evil is a real lack, privation, or corruption of a good thing. That is, evil does not exist in itself: evil exists only in a thing or substance – and all things God made are good" (Geisler 2011, 18). Therefore, God is the creator of everything in existence. However, since evil is not a thing but a privation of good, God did not create evil. Instead, good must exist to make evil possible. Furthermore, by comparing evil to moth holes, Geisler concludes that nothing can be entirely evil. Moth holes can corrupt a sweater, but a wholly moth-eaten garment is just a hangar in the closet (Geisler 2011, 19). Satan, who by his nature, is utterly evil in a moral sense (John 8:44) is still good in a metaphysical sense because Lucifer was an angel of God. Morally, it is possible for a mere human to be utterly depraved, yet metaphysically still be good in that they are still image bearers of God.

Click to expand...

You said evil cannot exist if there is no good to corrupt.

What about hell?
All evil...no good.