Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You don’t really need Hebrew school, @GDL. The lexicons and multiple translations aren’t much needed since they only serve to confound the community and create ambiguous within the text.
“Evil” in old style English usage could simply mean “an evil thing occurred in my life,” as in something we didn’t like so much.
There’s only a need for “context” and lexicons and innumerable Bible translations to enter into the conversation around the word evil when we use ambiguous translations of the Bible and attempt to argue that Isaiah 45:7 is somehow related to moral evil (which it’s not.) In my experience it’s the most misused verse during inter denominational dialogue with Calvinists.
I read your entire message and appreciate the effort, although I wouldn’t go to those lengths if I agreed with what someone else wrote.I’d probably just tick “agree.”
Sovereign though simply means ruler, it’s not intended to mean that the ruler’s “behind all things” (in whatever way that phrase is being used.)
If you pop open a physical copy of the King James the King of England is addressed as “dread sovereign.” Again to be sovereign is a word that many Calvinists hijack and misuse as if it were intending to mean Gods in control of everything, like the common misuse of Isaiah 45:7 by that same group.
Not all Calvinists do this, thankfully. The Gospel Coalition has an article about how the proper use of sovereign simply means to rule.
It’s not a commentary on how the sovereign chooses to rule, it’s about the fact that he does rule.
Sounds like Thomas Jefferson.Predominate [quantity] translation was my meaning, however,
I have 9 English translations on my screen + the Hebrew + the Greek, which is pretty normal at all times so I can glance through them all.
So, lets' check closer than my previous glance: evil - 3; woe - 1; calamity - 4; disaster - 1. As I said, calamity or disaster is predominate [in quantity], and added now: evil close behind.
As I said, I'm OK with the translation "evil," which is not always used of moral evil (see lexicon inclusion below). NKJ English search while writing this: "evil" 482 hits in 454 verses. Also: Hebrew "ra" 569 hits in 529 verses (although it looks like the search is picking up a few other similar words). Greek "kaka" 354 hits in 325 verses. Big job to tell me "evil" is not an acceptable translation, or for me to prove it is. So, let's just agree that it's OK for now to retain our personal preferences for whatever our reasons.
FWIW, I'm not opposing you on this, as I've already explained that I do see the context speaking of national judgments by God. We're thus in agreement it seems.
I'm fully aware of what I said, and of the reasons for saying it. The full context of my discussion was not moral evil, but of how God works His will in relation to man's will.
Thanks for the input. I did look for such things when reading the Text and normally do. I also looked for parallels and know that darkness is used as a metaphor for evil at times (whatever its precise meaning is in context) and I noted that "create" is used in relation to both darkness and evil in Isaiah 45:7. If I was digging deeper, I'd want to know more of why. I already noted that it seems God is making the case that He is the Sovereign God that is behind all the things that will be done by Cyrus, and that there are no other (g)God's but Him.
Depends on what "evil" means here and His judgment on nations surely has to do with how He interacts with the things you mention.
Re: evil: in this instance and maybe in one or more of the other hundreds of uses of the word, He is not distanced from evil, because it does not have to mean what you narrowly want it to mean. It all depends on what is meant by "evil" in the context. Also, just to show you what I'm looking at without digging much deeper into other resources, here's some of the flexibility of the Hebrew "ra" and note, if you care to read all this (and no criticism if you don't) how "evil" shows up 3 different times in 2 or 3 different senses:
רַע adjective masculine singular absolute
__________________________________
Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (HOL)
Hol7961
רַע, ) רָע225 × ) : f. רָעָה; pl. רָעִים, cs. רָעֵי, f. רָעוֹת; adj.: — 1. of bad quality, inferior: cattle Gn 4120, water 2K 219; mar°eh ugly Gn 413; — 2. disagreeable, unwholesome: lifetime Gn 479, region Nu 205; b®r¹±â in unfavorable circumstances 2K 1410; — 3. bad, of no value, contemptible: name Dt 2214; — 4. bad-tempered, evil, morally depraved: maµš¹bâ (scheme) Gn 65; derek r¹±â 1K 1333; — 5. ra± b®±ênê bad in the eyes ( = judgment) of = disagreeable, displeasing Gn 288, = undesirable, annoying Nu 1110, = objectionable, disapproved of 1K 116; ra± ±al annoying to Ec 217; — 6. bad = vicious, harmful: boils Dt 2835, wild animal Gn 3733; d¹b¹r ra± something unwholesome 2K 441; rûµ r¹±â harmful, destructive spirit 1S 1614; ra± ±ayin envious Pr 236; — 7. evil, adverse: yôm r¹± fatal day Am 63; r¹± disaster Gn 4434; b®r¹± in a bad situation Ex 59; l®ra± l¹kem to your harm Je 76; — 8. bad, evil (in the absolute, ethical sense) Gn 29 1K 39; — 9. in a bad mood, cross, discontented: p¹nék¹ r¹±îm you look out of sorts Gn 407; — 10. ra± > noun: (I fear no) evil Ps 234; °anšê r¹± wicked men Pr 285; — 11. spec.: b®r¹± hû° he is prone to evil Ex 3222; ±¹´â r¹±â cause disaster? do harm to onesf. ? 2S 1218. (pg 342)
With all this said, like I said, I'm not really opposing you. I'm a fan of attempting to be consistent with translating words. It's confounding to see the varieties of translations for the same word. But words have ranges of meanings, translations are done in different eras under different controls, and some of my attempts to be consistent in translating myself have been humbled.
It wasn't my case that God creates moral evil, but that we don't have a handle on exactly what He does and doesn't do in all respects. I also for some time have not desired to remain in a theological box anymore and I question most thinking now, including some of the indirect responsibilities for His creation that God seems to logically have, and why that logic may or may not be correct. I understand that His character is never lessened in any way.
I believe God gives us a conscience - the capacity to know good from evil - and this allows us to get a complete handle on the idea of Him creating and predesting some to hell and others to heaven. It would be clear to a child that this is not fair or just and didn't Jesus say something about thinking like that?
Sounds like Thomas Jefferson.
In no sense or at any time did I argue for evil = moral evil. That was your insertion and misunderstanding.
For my benefit, there's no need to keep pointing to Calvin.
Thanks, but what you've said is of little help in the overall discussion of sovereignty.
Honestly, your orientation to the 2 words you've chosen to discuss with me is a bit surface IMO and not useful to me in any way so far.
I'd prefer to be done with this part of the discussion.
I've not once said that I believe in God predestining some to either place. Also, FWIW, I've never seen "predestine" as being used in such a context. Hope this clears things up a bit
So, when your heart is fully written with God's Law, and your conscience is perfected under the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ, and you fully comprehend how God works in all respects, please do come back and inform me on everything.
I agree that we can't understand everything about God or what He does.
He had this neat little turntable on which you could prop up about four open books and turn to review them without having to handle the books.True? Sounds like a bright man.
Just helps me see where translations are all over the place and assess why. Also allows me to quickly look into manuscripts. Glad I have a computer and great software and not Thomas's paperworks.
This doesn't say He allows evil. Ultimately He is perfectly righteous and just. But this doesn't mean we have a handle on precisely how He thinks and functions.
You may not have used the word "predestination" but that's the only conclusion I can draw when you divide people up into being made of different types of clay: some from the "clay for destruction" and others from the "clay for honour". If there is another inference, do let me know.
but that's the only conclusion I can draw when you divide people up into being made of different types of clay: some from the "clay for destruction" and others from the "clay for honour". If there is another inference, do let me know
I guess your math skills have caused you to draw some wrong conclusions. I thought the sarcasm would fire you up and make you think a bit deeper.
I'm not the one dividing. I'm referencing Paul and I clarified for you already that it's what's being done with the clay by the potter. You should probably just do some work in the Text and read that I'm taking references from it and asking questions about the depths of it. To be helpful: Romans 9; Isaiah 29; Isaiah 64; Jeremiah 18; Lamentations 2. Romans 9 would be the focus where you'll find the language and concept you find disconcerting.
He had this neat little turntable on which you could prop up about four open books and turn to review them without having to handle the books.
I'd rather leave it there. This has been an informative thread and I wouldn't want to see it closed.
Again, the sovereignty and free will issue, is it not?
If God in His omniscience creates man He knows will fail, in a universe He has created that provides for the potential of failure, and initiates tests He knows man will fail, even though it is not His will that man fails, how do we so cleanly slice the responsibility? How can we cleanly say the failure is not His will, because He knows what it will accomplish in the end?
That decision was made before it came off the potter's wheel, "the right to make for ignoble purposes" (Romans 9:21).What does God see in a person that provides for His determination that some will be clay for destruction and some clay for honor? What is the dividing line where He determines He will be party to the hardening of a heart?
Keeping in mind that God's foreknowledge refers to his own actions, not to the actions of men.We like to speak of free will, but, for example, could John the Baptist be anyone but who he was born and foretold to be? Is it just God's foreknowledge and omniscience knowing every decision John would make, or did God specifically insert him into history for His purposes? Same thing for certain evil people?
]When I try to understand who He is, what His capabilities are, how His perfection keeps Him free of being imperfect in any sense, how the clay has no right or really any ability to question the Potter, how this creation is His in His Sovereignty, etc., etc., etc., I fall back into thinking that I have no capacity nor way to think I can fully understand Him or how and why He does things. I also know He is completely free of needing me to think I can protect Him with my puny thinking or words.
In a way we are just [free will] puppets. There's nothing we can do but end up where He will have us end up. He will have the creation He wants. I'm fine with this, as completely committed as I can be at this point along the way, and completely looking forward to being and doing everything He has planned for our future.
Free will, in the philosophical sense--power to make all moral choices, including sinlessness--is denied in Scripture (John 8:34). Slaves are not free.Being at the end of His strings with free will may not make logical sense, but, until someone resolves sovereignty and free-will, I'm open to the concept being logical in a way we just can't explain yet.
If we want to consider the concept, all we have to do is try to look ever deeper into the mindset of our first-born brother. He made a request in godly fear, it seems clearly to have been denied, and the strings remained attached to play out what God's will was. Always doing what He saw our Father do and saying what He heard our Father say seems to be the man choosing in free will and asking for the strings.
That decision was made before it came off the potter's wheel, "the right to make for ignoble purposes" (Romans 9:21).
Keeping in mind that God's foreknowledge refers to his own actions, not tot he actions of men.
Acts 15:18 - "Known to the LORD for ages is his work."
Isaiah 48:3 - "I foretold (decreed) the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, (as decreed)
and they came to pass." (happened as decreed)
God knows in advance what is going to happen because he has decreed that it shall happen.
Free will, in the philosophical sense--power to make all moral choices--is denied in Scripture (John 8:34).
Free agency, in the philosophical sense, is what is presented in Scripture as "free will"--ability to choose according to one' preferences and desires without external constraint.
God in his sovereignty accomplishes his purposes by working in the dispositions of men, disposing them to is will, without external constraint or force and, therefore, does not violate their free will to act according to their preferences or desires.
There is no conflict between the sovereignty of God and the Biblical free will of man.
We can understand what he reveals.I agree that we can't understand everything about God or what He does.
Neither your conscience, nor anything else on the face of the earth, gives you a handle nor anything else to overturn what God's has revealed in Romans 9:18-23.I believe God gives us a conscience - the capacity to know good from evil - and this allows us to get a complete handle on the idea of Him creating and predesting some to hell and others to heaven. It would be clear to a child that this is not fair or just and didn't Jesus say something about thinking like that?
We can understand what he reveals.
Neither your conscience, nor anything else on the face of the earth, gives you a handle nor anything else to overturn what God's has revealed in Romans 9:18-23.
I would submit that the absolute sovereignty of God is precisely what Scripture presents inSovereign though simply means ruler, it’s not intended to mean that the ruler’s “behind all things” (in whatever way that phrase is being used.)
If you pop open a physical copy of the King James the King of England is addressed as “dread sovereign.” Again to be sovereign is a word that many Calvinists hijack and misuse as if it were intending to mean Gods in control of everything, like the common misuse of Isaiah 45:7 by that same group.
Not all Calvinists do this, thankfully. The Gospel Coalition has an article about how the proper use of sovereign simply means to rule.
It’s not a commentary on how the sovereign chooses to rule, it’s about the fact that he does rule.
Regarding the topic under discussion, from Romans 9:21.I'd be interested in hearing how you came to believe that we don't have free will. Presumably as a child you had a sense that you were free to make some choices - not complete freedom of course, you weren't free to fly for example - but no doubt you felt you had the freedom to run or to walk, to choose this chocolate or that one from a proffered box of chocolates etc. So how did you come to lose this sense?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?