GOD didn't create evil - Founding teacher reference needed.

[dkbwarrior]

More of what Hagin taught on this can be found in his popular book, "Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, Spiritual Death". See pages 17, 18. Still on travel and having trouble with copy and paste. Here is a text link to the book:

https://archive.org/stream/Redeemed...ness-And-Spiritual-Death-1-eBook-PDF_djvu.txt

Here is the copy and paste:

Many other verbs were translated in the causative sense in
the King James Version. For example, Isaiah 45:7 reads, "I form
the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the Lord do all these things." Does God create evil? No. That
would make God a devil. God may permit evil, but He does not
create it.

Amos 3:6 in the King James Version declares, "Shall a
trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall
there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? " If God
commits evil, then He has no right whatsoever to judge man for
sinning. But God has not done evil; He only permits evil. There
is a vast difference between commission and permission.

This is very strong language that Hagin used here. I happen to agree with it, although I wouldn't imply that those who hold to this view actually think this through, or come to that conclusion themselves; though it seems to me to be the only logical conclusion to draw from it.

Peace...

 

[victoryword]

Great article by Charles Capps. DKB can probably copy and paste Capps' comments on Isa. 45:7.

Charles Capps:Removing the Question Marks Releases Faith - The Christian Online Magazine

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Wow.

Bob, I will grant that Copeland is not always clear in his teaching which often makes him an easy target to heresy hunters, but I still don't get how you get the idea that Copeland taught that God created evil. The only person who can get that from Copeland's link is someone who WANTS to see it in there.

The only one who can't see what Cope is saying is one who DOESN'T WANT it to be there. Cope is saying EXACTLY what I've been saying. It was part of the creation to give choice; and the harvest to sinful choice is the bad stuff.

However, if Copeland's link could be used to support this teaching, a clear exegesis of God's Word does not. The WORD trumps Hagin, Copeland, et al.

It most certainly does. The thought is not built upon one verse. It is subjects like this that drove you to Open Theism, Troy. I remember conversations on CARM where you would tell me that certain verses were a problem for Word of Faith. One such verse I have never forgot our talking about was 1 Corinthians 11:30. We've had conversations about all this on CCF.

Nonetheless, we are discussing WoF founding fathers on this topic and we can see that Hagin did endorse the false idea that God creates evil.

And now the admittance that Copeland really IS teaching this. Let's turn our focus now. We must abandon him -- even though Truthfrees both referenced him as included in the founders, and calls for ANY teaching in our leaders of this topic. BTW, in you EMOTIONAL haste to put down my response you got the sense of Hagin's endorsement backward.

The point here being is the this is not a fundamental point of Word of Faith. Copeland answered the question correctly and biblically. What we do in Word of Faith, through our mainline teaching, is to emphasize the Goodness of God. It is important to show that God does not use and/or wield evil. And gain, Copeland shows this perfectly in his blog response.

What needs to happen here in the forums is that people need to quit getting their emotions in such a knot. You and I have discussed this topic before, probably here on CF and certainly on CCF -- it was a problematic point when I first joined, if you remember, and they thought I was not Word of Faith. You defended me DESPITE this teaching. You didn't toss me to the wolves and call for my removal. You simple argued the opposing point and we moved on. Dan and others have argued this point CALMLY here on CF and we play it out and move on. It wasn't until the recent tirade by ONE POSTER that discussions such as this became an issue. Discussions like this have gone on since CF has been here. All of a sudden the rules of the forum are changing?? I don't think so.

There's lots to discuss, let's support our views, show scripture and then move on out of any disagreement tot the next topic. This last month was disruptive in a way that these types of subjects have NEVER disrupted these forums before.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

More of what Hagin taught on this can be found in his popular book, "Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, Spiritual Death". See pages 17, 18. Still on travel and having trouble with copy and paste. Here is a text link to the book:

https://archive.org/stream/Redeemed...ness-And-Spiritual-Death-1-eBook-PDF_djvu.txt

I agree. Hagin DISAGREES with my view. Copeland AGREES with my view (perfectly, I might add). It's worth a calm discussion. It is not worth the current storm.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Here is the copy and paste:



This is very strong language that Hagin used here. I happen to agree with it, although I wouldn't imply that those who hold to this view actually think this through, or come to that conclusion themselves; though it seems to me to be the only logical conclusion to draw from it.

Peace...

You have had this view consistently every time we've talked bout it. I thank you for your ability to remain calm in the face if something that you find blatantly wrong. Discussion, not tirades, are the way to plant seed for growth.

BTW , can you chime in on Cope's view? Do you agree that is what I've been saying all along?

 

[dkbwarrior]

You have had this view consistently every time we've talked bout it. I thank you for your ability to remain calm in the face if something that you find blatantly wrong. Discussion, not tirades, are the way to plant seed for growth.

BTW , can you chime in on Cope's view? Do you agree that is what I've been saying all along?

Well, I can accept it if you say that is the case. For myself, it would mean I have misinterpreted your meaning somewhat. I was under the impression that your definition of evil included both sin and the punishment of sin.

To clarify, in your view, if the evil God created is only the punishment for sin, then who do you believe created sin? Where did it come from?

Peace...

NOTE:
It would be ironic if you hold to Copelands view on the issue of the creation of the punishment for sin, while I hold to Hagins; yet you hold to Hagins view on the 100 fold return, while I hold to Copelands...lol...

 

[victoryword]

Yes I remember those conversations Bob, especially on 1 Cor. 11:30. I was still searching in those times and even caused a controversy on this forum concerning that passage. Frankly I was looking for other WoFers to help me understand passages like that in light of our WoF beliefs and all I got was the standard WoF answers devoid of Scripture. I began to conclude that God doesn't, on rare occasions, inflict with sickness because no one had any concrete Biblical answers.

I have since then studied God's Word and discovered the puzzle pieces that I was missing. Like you,I could no longer accept the standard "Young's lost book of active permissive verbs" (I have since then found the book by Young's, as well as other scholars such as J. B. Rotherham who translated and wrote the notes for "The Emphasized Bible"). I have also discovered that a number of scholars since the Reformation learned this truth, Melancthon being one of them.

The Bible, being its own interpreter, does a better job of proving this principle of permission better than any Hebrew scholar. Learning what the Bible says has given me a new understanding of 1 Cor. 11:30. I simply interpret it with 1 Cor. 5:5. Same epistle by the same man. 1 Cor. 5:5 tells us God's method of judgment.

However, that had NOTHING to do with open theism. You keep throwing in this straw man attack. If you want to discuss open theism as it relates to WoF then we probably should start a new thread.

 

[victoryword]

One other point, You are right that I defended you on CCF and would do so again. Heck, when I even disputed the suggestion to report you here. We should debate this, not kick each other off of forums because of disagreements. But While I did defend you on CCF where I am a moderator (I turned down the offer to be an admin) I do believe I was just as passionate in confronting you over there. As a matter of fact I got exasperated with your circular arguing and you accused me of "taking my ball and going home".

This is to say that when I argue a point I do it with passion and not cold logic. This God's nature we are not talking about just some principle. However, What is the point of debate if we only want to boot each other out because we disagree.

Finally, Copeland is not teaching what you teach. You are reading your ideas into Copeland's view.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Well, I can accept it if you say that is the case. For myself, it would mean I have misinterpreted your meaning somewhat. I was under the impression that your definition of evil included both sin and the punishment of sin.

To clarify, in your view, if the evil God created is only the punishment for sin, then who do you believe created sin? Where did it come from?

Sin is an action against God's will. It comes about because of our ability through free will to go against God. God gave us free will. Free will allows us to choose, and to choose against God's will is sin.

NOTE:
It would be ironic if you hold to Copelands view on the issue of the creation of the punishment for sin, while I hold to Hagins; yet you hold to Hagins view on the 100 fold return, while I hold to Copelands...lol...

Understanding that nobody is likely 100% right, and further that in God's eyes we're all probably some percentage wrong -- meaning if we gathered up the sum total of all denominational teaching we probably don't have 100% right anywhere on that table, even though the bible is right in front of us.

Given that, there will b disagreements in the body. Some are blatant: Armenian vs. Calvinist, Fundies vs. Charismatic, etc. Some internal: disagreements between Cope and Hagin; other denominations have their own internal issues: that's why we even have denominations, much to Paul's warning.

So we will disagree. Cope and Hagin disagree. Study and choose, and the have discussions about the benefits of each viewpoint. It makes us stronger, not weaker. Iron sharpens iron.

So, yeah, kind of ironic that we have our pick from each man's litter, and while we agree on a lot, there are things as you mentioned where we will disagree -- at least for a while. If we don't understand each other here on earth, we'll sit before Jesus and probably BOTH be corrected.

While we're here, though, we'll disagree but let's do it in love.

I appreciate you so dearly, Dan. You have shown stubborn patience in loving me through all he things you disagree with me on. You truly show the Spirit of Christ.

God bless you, brother. Love you, man!!

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

However, that had NOTHING to do with open theism. You keep throwing in this straw man attack. If you want to discuss open theism as it relates to WoF then we probably should start a new thread.

Throwing in OT is only because it looks that way.

As far as a thread, I don't think this is the time for it. So I'm not pushing down that road. The other problem is whether it belongs in this forum. You obviously have resolved in your mind Open Theism with a majority of what Word of Faith teaches. I think WoF strongly teaches God's sovereignty and I see Open Theism as an affront to sovereignty.

So, it's up to you and your time. I'll follow if you go there (and I promise to be civil, although likely not agreeable).

Be blessed, Troy.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

One other point, You are right that I defended you on CCF and would do so again. Heck, when I even disputed the suggestion to report you here. We should debate this, not kick each other off of forums because of disagreements.

Absolutely true.

Plus, Word/Faith is still not a denomination because of the inability of its arts to have these discussions. Everyone wants it their way. We need to find a way to discuss our differences without feeling the need to 'yell foul.'

VW, I can honestly say I've never reported you here or elsewhere. I do enjoy our discussions and the references that it gives me to study.

But While I did defend you on CCF where I am a moderator (I turned down the offer to be an admin) I do believe I was just as passionate in confronting you over there. As a matter of fact I got exasperated with your circular arguing and you accused me of "taking my ball and going home".

This is to say that when I argue a point I do it with passion and not cold logic. This God's nature we are not talking about just some principle. However, What is the point of debate if we only want to boot each other out because we disagree.

Agreed. Your exasperation was likely due to our discussion having reached its limit and we let going (round and round). But we do need to understand that our discussions are unlikely to change the participants DURING the discussion, but rather are seeds sown.

Finally, Copeland is not teaching what you teach. You are reading your ideas into Copeland's view.

Yes, he is. No, I'm not.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Yes, I saw this link when Troy posted it; however, I don't see it as being quite the slam dunk that you imply Bob. First off, Copeland defines evil as being the punishment for sin, not sin itself; and secondly he qualifies it by saying "... in the sense" that God created the law of sowing and reaping He did. If we are talking about the creation of sin itself, Copeland specifically says that God did not create sin; rather, God created a law and there are certain ramifications for breaking that law.

What is the purpose of the law anyway? Did God establish laws in order to hurt us? I don't think either of us believe that. God established laws to protect us, and to bless us. However, if we misuse those laws, violate them, then we reap bad consequences. I look at it like the law of gravity. The law of gravity was not created to kill people. It was created to hold things, including mankind, to the planet surface; and in a larger sense to hold the entire universe together. A result of walking off a cliff or throwing oneself off the pinnacle of the temple as satan tried to get Jesus to do, is a long fall and likely death. But that was never the purpose of the law of gravity. It is an unintended side effect of not respecting the law.

Peace...

Everything you say here is on target, except the slam dunk part .

Although you're talking AROUND the subject here. After all, God created gravity. God also created the body not to bounce when it hits the bottom of the cliff -- certainly that doesn't mean that God wishes us broken bones and internal tears and distress. He certainly didn't set us up for fatal incident.

He gave us free will. He did not desire us to walk away from His will. Sin is walking contrary to His will, contrary to faith. He did not create sin, He certainly provided the free choice to do so. He certainly created the 'evil', or bad stuff, that is the punishment - the judgment - for walking off the cliff, so to speak.

 

[victoryword]

Great article by Charles Capps. DKB can probably copy and paste Capps' comments on Isa. 45:7.

Charles Capps:Removing the Question Marks Releases Faith - The Christian Online Magazine

Has anyone read Charles Capps' teaching on this yet?

Ya'll know that Capps and Copeland were very close

 

[victoryword]

Absolutely true.

Plus, Word/Faith is still not a denomination because of the inability of its arts to have these discussions. Everyone wants it their way. We need to find a way to discuss our differences without feeling the need to 'yell foul.'

VW, I can honestly say I've never reported you here or elsewhere. I do enjoy our discussions and the references that it gives me to study.



Agreed. Your exasperation was likely due to our discussion having reached its limit and we let going (round and round). But we do need to understand that our discussions are unlikely to change the participants DURING the discussion, but rather are seeds sown.


Yes, he is. No, I'm not.

Bob, still will fight alongside you against heresy hunters. Love ya' bro.

But Copeland does not agree with you (yes, I had to get that shot in )

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

But Copeland does not agree with you (yes, I had to get that shot in )

Copeland says he loves what I said....


....although that was Fred Copeland who lives down the street from me.

 

[victoryword]

Okay, I managed to make my iPad copy and paste the portion of Charles Capps' portion on Isaiah 45:7

Did God Create Darkness?

Many have asked, “What about Isaiah 45:7, ‘I form the light, and create darkness’?” The truth is that God created the earth to rotate on its axis so that it is dark on the other side of the earth and light on this side, but He did not create evil darkness. How do we know that he didn’t? I John 1:5 reveals that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all”. Since God is light, how could He create darkness? We know that darkness is the absence of light. To create darkness God would have to put Himself out. Where the ultimate light source exists there can be no darkness. Isaiah 45:7 also says, “I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these [things]”. Several things could have been involved here. Remember the mentality: If God permits it, he commits it. God permits evil only in the sense that He doesn’t always keep it from happening. He has to allow it because of man’s choice in the Garden of Eden. Adam chose the knowledge of blessing and calamity. He even had a legal right (yet not a moral right) to make the wrong choice because God had given him dominion.​

Beautiful explanation.

 

[victoryword]

Copeland says he loves what I said....


....although that was Fred Copeland who lives down the street from me.

roflol

I almost fell off my chair laughing.

 

[dkbwarrior]

Okay, I managed to make my iPad copy and paste the portion of Charles Capps' portion on Isaiah 45:7

Did God Create Darkness?

Many have asked, “What about Isaiah 45:7, ‘I form the light, and create darkness’?” The truth is that God created the earth to rotate on its axis so that it is dark on the other side of the earth and light on this side, but He did not create evil darkness. How do we know that he didn’t? I John 1:5 reveals that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all”. Since God is light, how could He create darkness? We know that darkness is the absence of light. To create darkness God would have to put Himself out. Where the ultimate light source exists there can be no darkness. Isaiah 45:7 also says, “I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these [things]”. Several things could have been involved here. Remember the mentality: If God permits it, he commits it. God permits evil only in the sense that He doesn’t always keep it from happening. He has to allow it because of man’s choice in the Garden of Eden. Adam chose the knowledge of blessing and calamity. He even had a legal right (yet not a moral right) to make the wrong choice because God had given him dominion.​

Beautiful explanation.

Sorry I didn't get to it first! I was planning on doing it after I finished my last post but then my wife wanted me to go into the city with her for the day to do some after Christmas shopping, (in other words, she needed someone to hold her purse and her purchases while she was trying on stuff...)

I love my wife and I am happy to hold her purse anytime. It took precedence...lol...

Peace...

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Although I'd never go toe to toe with Charles Capps, I offer these questions:

Okay, I managed to make my iPad copy and paste the portion of Charles Capps' portion on Isaiah 45:7

Did God Create Darkness?

Many have asked, “What about Isaiah 45:7, ‘I form the light, and create darkness’?” The truth is that God created the earth to rotate on its axis so that it is dark on the other side of the earth and light on this side, ...​

So Capps says he created PHYSICAL darkness.

...but He did not create evil darkness. How do we know that he didn’t? I John 1:5 reveals that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all”.

Is 1 John 1:5 speaking of creating or nature of God?

Since God is light, how could He create darkness?

This is a non-sequitur. God being light has nothing to do with Him CREATING darkness. What would follow is that the darkness would have no place in Him. Remember please, God does not create things from His own nature -- He doesn't take parts of Himself to make things -- rather He creates from NOTHING. Thus, God being light says NOTHING about what He can create.

We know that darkness is the absence of light. To create darkness God would have to put Himself out.

Why? God creating from NOTHING has nothing to do with His nature... He's not pulling it from Himself.

Where the ultimate light source exists there can be no darkness.

To a point, I agree. As an absolute, we have a problem with Satan going to God in the book of Job. Can anyone explain how sinful and dark Satan got into Light's presence? (Scripturally, please.)

Isaiah 45:7 also says, “I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these [things]”. Several things could have been involved here. Remember the mentality: If God permits it, he commits it. God permits evil only in the sense that He doesn’t always keep it from happening. He has to allow it because of man’s choice in the Garden of Eden. Adam chose the knowledge of blessing and calamity. He even had a legal right (yet not a moral right) to make the wrong choice because God had given him dominion.

I agree and boil all this down to: God doesn't wield evil.


Now, I love Charles Capps teaching. So the above should not be seen as an attack "on our founding fathers" (oops, scratch the founding part; Capps wasn't). It simply is a set of questions because I'm not a pew potato. I do what our teachers tell us to do: "don't take my word for it! Check out the bible yourself!!" If need be, I could start a dozen threads in agreement with Charles. Met him once; he was an awesomely nice guy.

 

[dkbwarrior]

I appreciate you so dearly, Dan. You have shown stubborn patience in loving me through all he things you disagree with me on. You truly show the Spirit of Christ.

God bless you, brother. Love you, man!!

I appreciate you also my brother. I am sure you are aware of this, but I enjoy these discussions. I am often provoked to do research in directions that hadn't occurred to me before, and even if I don't change my mind, it allows me to 'perfect' my argument. This allows me to avoid pitfalls in future teaching of controversial principles or theology, and anticipate problem areas that need more attention or need to be further addressed. As a matter of fact, even when I get annoyed, (and I sometimes do), I find it is an opportunity to practice patience and love; or, as the most esteemed prince of Gondor said in The Lord of the Rings, "A chance for Faramir of Gondor to show his quality".

May God keep and bless you.

Peace...