God permits evil because we need to know

[timothyu]

Also, remember who comes up with dictionary definitions...
To me it's usually not God's children.

I agree but man no matter who they are often redefine good and evil to suit their purposes including religious. Scripture speaks clearly without the need to be defined.

 

[Noxot]

Again, I don't define theology by how we as men tend to define it.

I define it by "Theo" = God.
"-ology" = study of, understanding of, knowing.

Also, remember who comes up with dictionary definitions...
To me it's usually not God's children.

Philosophy means friend of wisdom. Theosophy means divine wisdom. Not necessarily evil things according to those definitions.

 

[JAL]

Human fallibility is precisely why I accept the idea of "Sola Scriptura" ( Scripture Alone ) versus the teachnigs some have of "Scripture plus.....".

Exegesis is exceedingly fallible. For example, Paul was a bible-scholar prior to getting saved and, as a result, was steeped in error. Inspiration (Direct Revelation) is our only hope of infallible doctrine - that's what worked for Paul.

Also Sola Scriptura is a myth. You don't rely on the Bible alone. For example how do you know the Bible is inspired? Via the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) by which you reached all your major conclusions (the Spirit convicted/convinced you of the major truths).

 

[JAL]

Adventure, mettle, courage... can you seriously not find good reasons to exist in a world such as this for a Time?

No I can't. I frankly can't make sense of unnecessary suffering. Look, we weren't sitting around asking God to bring us to into a world of suffering. He should have let the matter rest, if that were an option. Also two issues.
(1) Agape love intervenes to reduce suffering. Therefore if God is infinite, for example infinite in love, suffering would be a logical impossibility.
(2)You're basically arguing that suffering has its own intrinsic benefits, and thus God did us a favor - an act of kindness/generosity - by allowing suffering. Let's suppose that's true. How much kindness/generosity does an infinite God have? An infinite amount, right? Therefore He must be planning on repeating planet earth (i.e. a new earth with a new first couple) over and over ad infinitum. The reality is that neither you nor I believe that will happen. Suffering is NOT, therefore, intrinsically valuable - it is to be permitted only as a necessary evil unto a necessary end, as my theodicy asserts.

 

[Jaxxi]

A free will does eliminate evil. Think about it, we learn about evil to loathe it, not to get to choose it. Who would desire to be able to choose evil?

Anyone who chooses to sell their soul for money. Yet society glorifies these people like they are something special. I can't believe all the fans and people who reject that notion and say " its just art" or " its their expression". No, it is evil. It is apparent.

 

[timothyu]

Everybody pushes the limit, but in the end as one generation gives way to another, there will be nothing left on the other side of that boundary to push, especially in a global society. Babel worked for a time but no more.

 

[Navair2]

Exegesis is exceedingly fallible. For example, Paul was a bible-scholar prior to getting saved and, as a result, was steeped in error. Inspiration (Direct Revelation) is our only hope of infallible doctrine - that's what worked for Paul.

If you're arguing for the presence of the Holy Spirit, then I agree.

Also Sola Scriptura is a myth. You don't rely on the Bible alone. For example how do you know the Bible is inspired? Via the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) by which you reached all your major conclusions (the Spirit convicted/convinced you of the major truths).

The part that is not a myth is that "Sola Scriptura" was originally stated in opposition to an institution's teaching that men need help from other men ( scholars ) in order to properly understand God's word.

I disagree with them and hold that believers do not need men to help me...
I need God to help me.

So when someone defends "Scripture Alone" as their authority, that is what they mean, JAL.
In other words, as a believer, I don't need a church or an institution of men to explain to me what the Bible teaches, and I don't need men to pass down their understanding of it to me through "systematic theology".

I can get that for myself.


The Holy Spirit is the only way anyone can ever hope to understand the Bible ( 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 1 John 2:20-27 ).
But He will never guide one of God's children into something that is not the truth.

 

[Navair2]

Anyone who chooses to sell their soul for money. Yet society glorifies these people like they are something special. I can't believe all the fans and people who reject that notion and say " its just art" or " its their expression". No, it is evil. It is apparent.

To me it's unmistakable.
The Bible and what it has to say about ourselves is on full display today, more than ever.

Outside of being born again, we as men are evil and love it ( Romans 1:18-32, John 3:19-20 ).
We flaunt it whenever and wherever we please, as long as there are no consequences to pay.

 

[JAL]

I disagree with them and hold that believers do not need men to help me...
I need God to help me.

So when someone defends "Scripture Alone" as their authority, that is what they mean, JAL.
In other words, as a believer, I don't need a church or an institution of men to explain to me what the Bible teaches, and I don't need men to pass down their understanding of it to me through "systematic theology".

I can get that for myself.


The Holy Spirit is the only way anyone can ever hope to understand the Bible ( 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 1 John 2:20-27 ).
But He will never guide one of God's children into something that is not the truth.

Agreed. Where I disagree with the Sola Scriptura movement is primarily on one crucial tenet - the question of final authority.

In my view Direct Revelation is self-authenticating and thus final. For example when Abraham heard a voice commanding him to slaughter his own son, he didn't need to "check it out with Scripture". Same thing when Moses and Joshua heard a voice commanding them to slaughter 7 nations to possess Canaan. Same when Paul heard a voice on the Road to Damascus.

Whereas in the Sola Scriptura movement, exegesis alone is final, thus one must always "check it out with Scripture". This requirement doesn't make sense because, during conversion, we accepted the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) as FINAL - in fact that's not an event of the past, it's still present, because every day I rely on the Inward Witness to continue testifying that Jesus is God, that He died for my sins, and that the Bible is inspired.

How can we recognize a revelation as final? How did the prophets recognize this? I believe there is, logically speaking, only one feasible answer to this question, discussed for example on this thread:
How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura | Christian Forums

 

[Aaron_Bethlhm]

A free will does eliminate evil. Think about it, we learn about evil to loathe it, not to get to choose it. Who would desire to be able to choose evil?

I first saw the reply-quote below, then this one ....
Think about what Scripture says about mankind - it is and has been almost entirely wicked for thousands of years. Children are 'abused' by their parents, guardians, teachers, and so on, being taught that evil is okay, greed is necessary, and sin is nothing to worry about ..... (most of the world it seems , and more importantly, the Bible says most people on earth do not even think of turning to God nor of repenting of serving demons ) ... they were not taught to loathe evil, were they ? Or if they were, they departed from that teaching...
As noted:

Anyone who chooses to sell their soul for money. Yet society glorifies these people like they are something special. I can't believe all the fans and people who reject that notion and say " its just art" or " its their expression". No, it is evil. It is apparent.

A few years ago, it came out in the news nationwide about (surprisingly) the large number of hollywoodsters (actors/etc) who agreed to and did sell their souls to the devil (literally) in exchange for being "funny", or "popular/successful" in theater, movies, etc, This does not necessarily even include the ones relying on the , what was it, mob? syndicate? powerful men in position to "make them" or "break them" ?

 

[childeye 2]

Anyone who chooses to sell their soul for money. Yet society glorifies these people like they are something special. I can't believe all the fans and people who reject that notion and say " its just art" or " its their expression". No, it is evil. It is apparent.

It's how the term 'free' is qualified that defines what type of "free will" we're talking about. Free from what? The only truly free will is one that is free from sin.

 

[Navair2]

How can we recognize a revelation as final? How did the prophets recognize this? I believe there is, logically speaking, only one feasible answer to this question, discussed for example on this thread:

Perhaps I'll read the thread later.
For now, I would advise caution, my friend.

Not everything that pops into one's head, even supernaturally, is of God.
I've had my own dealings with the spiritual realm, and not all of them were good.
That is why I hold that we must test all things by what is written.

God's Spirit will never tell us something or guide us into something that is not true and not in character with what He has already revealed in His word.

But I also think that I understand where you're going, in your thinking.

" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together." ( Romans 8:16 ).

 

[JAL]

Perhaps I'll read the thread later.
For now, I would advise caution, my friend.

Not everything that pops into one's head, even supernaturally, is of God.
I've had my own dealings with the spiritual realm, and not all of them were good.
That is why I hold that we must test all things by what is written.

God's Spirit will never tell us something or guide us into something that is not true and not in character with what He has already revealed in His word.

But I also think that I understand where you're going, in your thinking.

" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together." ( Romans 8:16 ).

I understand your concern but given my rather voluminous treatment of this topic, for example on the link I gave you, your words can only strike me as incredibly patronizing (unintentionally) . The cautions you've just expressed are considerations that I ruminated on starting 30 years ago - and I've seen literally NOTHING on any debate forum that would shake my confidence in my epistemology. I'm just as firm in my beliefs now as I was 30 years ago.

And as for the specific examples I gave you:
(1) Abraham trying to slaughter his own son.
(2) Moses attempting to slaughter 7 nations

They are both indicated in Hebrews 11 as the life of "faith", explicitly for Abraham and implicitly for men like Moses and Joshua (when it says these men "conquered kingdoms by faith"). In other words, Heb 11 is laying down their examples as a model of "faith" for us all to emulate. Sola Scriptura doesn't harmonize well with that paradigm but, as demonstrated on that link, my epistemology accounts for it seamlessly.

 

[JAL]

Didn't really plan to go into detail on this issue, but nonetheless I will comment once more on it.

Perhaps I'll read the thread later.
For now, I would advise caution, my friend....That is why I hold that we must test all things by what is written.

Which is out and out rebellion. The degree of clarity in a Direct Revelation is the extent to which it raises your level of certainty. When it is quite clear - i.e. when you feel fully persuaded that you heard God clearly - He will interpret any delays in your obedience (e.g. to check it out with Scripture) as deliberate stalling/rebellion. That can make Him angry. Recall God's anger with Moses at the burning bush.

Does that help?

 

[timothyu]

He will interpret any delays in your obedience (e.g. to check it out with Scripture) as deliberate stalling/rebellion.

Adam and Eve were given all the time they wanted to obey God's direct command (or not). Jesus when told to turn stone into bread, cast Himself down, or accept all the world as His, did not jump at the chances but weighed who it was that was commanding these things by using scripture to show those commandments were bogus. Today people are being told not to question but accept the Great Reset and any who don't are being ridiculed and censored. But guess what? Scripture shows them to be bogus also.

 

[JAL]

Even if we could find a few advocates of Sola Scriptura willing to admit that Direct Revelation is possible today, they would likely insist that exegesis is a higher priority. Yet Paul urged the pursuit of Direct Revelation as top priority, placing it on the top rung of the ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1).

 

[JAL]

Adam and Eve were given all the time they wanted to obey God's direct command (or not).

Um...generally one eats when he is hungry, not necessarily at the first opportunity. Your point is moot.
(1) Yes there may be occasions where God affords you a window of time to comply. So?
(2) Does He not also have the right to ask you to do some things immediately and without further question? Sure. Again, recall God's anger with Moses at the burning bush.

Jesus when told to turn stone into bread, cast Himself down, or accept all the world as His, did not jump at the chances but weighed who it was that was commanding these things by using scripture to show those commandments were bogus.

Irrelevant. Re-read my post. There is no such "weighing" possible for a high-clarity Direct Revelation.

And please don't use Christ's citations of Scripture as evidence for Sola Scriptura nonsense. Take a look at ALL His references to Scripture. Guess what you'll soon realize? That He consistently read between the lines, unearthing profundities in Scripture overlooked by all the Sola Scriptura scholars of His day (Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the law). That's because He was a PROPHET who, as such, read Scripture under the light of Direct Revelation from the Father.

One thing you're right about - Christ's example is paradigmatic for us today.

 

[garee]

Even if we could find a few advocates of Sola Scriptura willing to admit that Direct Revelation is possible today, they would likely insist that exegesis is a higher priority. Yet Paul urged the pursuit of Direct Revelation as top priority, placing it on the top rung of the ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1).

God is no longer bringing any new revelations in any manner. He warns us of the ongoing signs a false wonders with all power from the father of lies. And promises to send a strong delusion to those who violate the law not to add or subtract from the whole or perfect. It is sealed till the end of time with seven seals. It is still the last chapter in the book of prophecy, the Bible .

So then direct revelation is still possible as long as it does not add directly to the perfect. The word of God remains living as it works in us.

If any man says he saw the lord or had a dream we are to believe not. In that way the true believer (the elect) it would be impossible to be led astray by another gospel

 

[JAL]

God is no longer bringing any new revelations in any manner.

"New revelations" is an oxymoron, it is a propaganda term fabricated by the Sola Scriptura party to incite unrealistic paranoia of enlarging the canon, as a tactic leveraged to discourage Direct Revelation. How sad - and what a nightmare for men like Paul. The ONE THING the Galatians needed to mature, argued Paul, was the pursuit of Direct Revelation (the "hearing of faith") - the whole point of chapter 3.

"New revelation" is an oxymoron because the Bible is concerned with planet earth and thus everything under the sun. Direct Revelation does not and cannot introduce anything new - it can only clarify existing realities. Even Paul didn't see his writings as teaching "new revelation" - he was simply clarifying existing revelations.

 

[garee]

Um...generally one eats when he is hungry, not necessarily at the first opportunity. Your point is moot.
(1) Yes there may be occasions where God affords you a window of time to comply. So?
(2) Does He not also have the right to ask you to do some things immediately and without further question? Sure. Again, recall God's anger with Moses at the burning bush.


Irrelevant. Re-read my post. There is no such "weighing" possible for a high-clarity Direct Revelation.

And please don't use Christ's citations of Scripture as evidence for Sola Scriptura nonsense. Take a look at ALL His references to Scripture. Guess what you'll soon realize? That He consistently read between the lines, unearthing profundities in Scripture overlooked by all the Sola Scriptura scholars of His day (Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the law). That's because He was a PROPHET who, as such, read Scripture under the light of Direct Revelation from the Father.

One thing you're right about - Christ's example is paradigmatic for us today.

The Pharisees with Sadducees. called all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura) a heresy so that they could serve the oral traditions of the fathers. They hated the word of God and did not bless it by obeying it .

Born again Paul declared under the influence or inspiration of God who worked in Paul. By that which they call heresy so he worships the God of the fathers and not the legion of Father as one God. There showing they worshiped a legion of gods in the likeness of sinful men.They walked away in unbelief. No faith. Not little . . none.