The Fall

[Ormly]

I love it when I know I'm really right. The enemy knows when I am as well.

In fact, he doesn't even like it when I am a little bit right.

 

[Ormly]

It aint no mystery just flat out denial of what has been revealed. God can create any wicked thing He wants and it would not affect His Holiness one bit..furthermore you dont know the True God of the bible nor His Holiness, you serve a idol god..ormly one that aint wort the pot i spit in..

Where are you with that pot you spit in, a bar-room?

 

[JAL]

Sorry you cant rationalize it away God creates evil rah and to deny it is to deny the plain teaching of scripture..

I made a reference to the context - the contrast set up in the passage such that evil is not the opposite of peace.


My reading is possible because it satisfies both (a) the demands of the context and (b) the demands of Hebrew vocabulary and (c) the need to avoid contradicting God's holiness.


So far your reading only addresses B, as far as I can see. You're batting 1 for 3.


But I'm the one who's rationalizing away the truth? I think I'm about done here.

 

[JAL]

Excellent point JAL, that most will argue against when speaking of God's sovreignty; His Holiness being an absolute against all manner of evil. Therefore, when reading that passage there is something more that must be considered. It would be like saying God created disobedience or, sin. Folks who are not of the freewill mindset have great difficult reconciling such scripture; relegating what they can't know to, "Its a mystery".

I think you and I are seeing the same problem here. And I would take a similar approach to passages such as "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." This poses a logical conflict with God's love. We have to resolve it.
Fortunately we have a precedent. The word "hate" can be used hyperbolically. Jesus said,

"If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26).


Clearly, God does not want us to hate our family. In Ephesians Paul tells us to love our wife as Christ loved the church. So this is a case where we cannot take Scripture (i.e. "hate") at face value.

Situations like this is why I differ with most evangelicals as to our most valuable exegetical tool. Most evangelicals think it to be linguistics (Greek and Hebrew). I think it to be the law of noncontradiction. Whenever we come up with a reading of one passage that blatantly contradicts our interpretation of other passages, something is wrong.

On the other hand I cannot go as far as Van does in his disdain for Calvinism. I cannot in good conscience say that it has no exegetical support. Indeed I believe that many of its elements are true, and even those elements that I disagree with rest on an EXTREMELY plausible, EXTREMELY tempting exegesis. I have great respect for Calvinism. Stated simply, if it weren't for the law of noncontradiction, I would be a full-blown Calvinist! (That's just my opinion - I can't recall your feelings on the issue because I haven't been following your posts).

 

[beloved57]

I made a reference to the context - the contrast set up in the passage such that evil is not the opposite of peace.


My reading is possible because it satisfies both (a) the demands of the context and (b) the demands of Hebrew vocabulary and (c) the need to avoid contradicting God's holiness.


So far your reading only addresses B, as far as I can see. You're batting 1 for 3.


But I'm the one who's rationalizing away the truth? I think I'm about done here.

God creates evil in all its meanings of the word regardless of context..He creates peace in all its meanings regardless of context, He creates light in all its meanings regardless of that context , he creates darkness , in all its meanings regardless of that context God has created all for Himself and you cannot be His child and deny that..

 

[Ormly]

I think you and I are seeing the same problem here. And I would take a similar approach to passages such as "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." This poses a logical conflict with God's love. We have to resolve it.
Fortunately we have a precedent. The word "hate" can be used hyperbolically. Jesus said,

"If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26).


Clearly, God does not want us to hate our family. In Ephesians Paul tells us to love our wife as Christ loved the church. So this is a case where we cannot take Scripture (i.e. "hate") at face value.

Situations like this is why I differ with most evangelicals as to our most valuable exegetical tool. Most evangelicals think it to be linguistics (Greek and Hebrew). I think it to be the law of noncontradiction. Whenever we come up with a reading of one passage that blatantly contradicts our interpretation of other passages, something is wrong.

On the other hand I cannot go as far as Van does in his disdain for Calvinism. I cannot in good conscience say that it has no exegetical support. Indeed I believe that many of its elements are true, and even those elements that I disagree with rest on an EXTREMELY plausible, EXTREMELY tempting exegesis. I have great respect for Calvinism. Stated simply, if it weren't for the law of noncontradiction, I would be a full-blown Calvinist! (That's just my opinion - I can't recall your feelings on the issue because I haven't been following your posts).

I have a family engagement but I will get up with you later on this. . . . and yes we agree on much of this, [I think]

 

[JAL]

God creates evil in all its meanings of the word regardless of context..He creates peace in all its meanings regardless of context, He creates light in all its meanings regardless of that context , he creates darkness , in all its meanings regardless of that context God has created all for Himself and you cannot be His child and deny that..

I was literally unable to suppress a burst of laughter in regard to your apparent insinuation that I am not a Christian if I don't agree with your exegesis.


I don't intend to keep debating with someone who keeps asserting his position in the face of a contradiction.

 

[JAL]

I have a family engagement but I will get up with you later on this. . . . and yes we agree on much of this, [I think]

This forum for me is an addiction I keep trying to break. Sometiems I leave for several months before coming back. So it's very likely I won't be around to hear what you have to say. Sorry.

 

[beloved57]

I was literally unable to suppress a burst of laughter in regard to your apparent insinuation that I am not a Christian if I don't agree with your exegesis.


I don't intend to keep debating with someone who keeps asserting his position in the face of a contradiction.

Friend one of the qualitys of God given faith is

Heb 11:

6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

That HE IS the Great I AM..

 

[Rick Otto]

God creates evil in all its meanings of the word regardless of context..He creates peace in all its meanings regardless of context, He creates light in all its meanings regardless of that context , he creates darkness , in all its meanings regardless of that context God has created all for Himself and you cannot be His child and deny that..

Thank you so very much.
Up until now I am the only person I've heard say that.
It's incredible how epidemic the notion that the action, not the motivation determines guilt.

 

[beloved57]

Thank you so very much.
Up until now I am the only person I've heard say that.
It's incredible how epidemic the notion that the action, not the motivation determines guilt.

hi rick what statement in particular are you referring to if I may ask ?

 

[Rick Otto]

lol, have you had coffee yet?
The one I quoted in my post!!!:
Originally Posted by beloved57
God creates evil in all its meanings of the word regardless of context..He creates peace in all its meanings regardless of context, He creates light in all its meanings regardless of that context , he creates darkness , in all its meanings regardless of that context God has created all for Himself and you cannot be His child and deny that..

 

[Van]

According to the false doctrine of Calvinism, God would not need to harden folks during their lives, for they would already be totally hardened with no spiritual ability from conception. QED Calvinism is unbiblical.

In 1 Peter 2:25, Peter refers to Jew and Gentile Christians as straying like sheep. Thus the behavior of sheep straying applies to all mankind, and not just Christians or Jews. In Matthew Jesus has compassion on the crowds following him, and the crowds included both Jews and Gentiles, so again, all the lost are like sheep without a shepherd.

 

[heymikey80]

You're trying to have it both ways. You're calling him pristine and sinful at the same time. Doesn't work.

My original post was on target. Your view has God creating him with a sinful element and then blaming him when that element eventually manifests. Unacceptable theodicy.

A just God does not author evil. Your view of God makes Him the author of evil and hence unjust.

The passage about sin being found in someone doesn't prove your point. All it shows is that upon initial examination no sin was found. After the sin, then yes, sin was found. This does not prove God authored sin.

Philosophically ....

Authorship requires intent. Intent isn't shown. So your argument doesn't really carry.

Evil also requires intent. Intent isn't shown. So the author isn't necessarily evil.

Within the broader context I'd agree with you that God intentionally planting evil intent into someone with the ultimate intent of evil isn't really a manageable view.

However, there's a range of manageable views that make sense of this.

God could intentionally plant evil intent with the ultimate intent of good. A good God creating a reality that results in evil had better be an explanation -- else there would be no explanation for why God is good. Free will doesn't cover for this deduction.

God could also intentionally create limited beings. Sin being a lack of good, a limited human creature could reach the state of sin through his limitations. Again, there's no clear way to establish that limited creatures can't conclude a good God -- because of course we're already admitting the point of limited existence. Free will doesn't cover for this deduction.

Sin being a lack of good, it may well be that anything independent of God is sin. That would smash human free will to pieces -- it would be free of dependency on God.

 

[Rick Otto]

Right on, Mikey.
And understanding this fundamental fact puts everything re: good & evil in understandable perspective.

 

[Van]

Calvinism is defended by philosophical inventions never mentioned in scripture. Jesus said a circumstance happened by chance, therefore exhaustive determinism is unbiblical. God arranged for the fall, but Adam chose to violate God's word.

 

[nobdysfool]

Calvinism is this, Calvinism is that. A one note song that means nothing and establishes nothing. As has been said, disparaging another's view shows that yours is untenable. Works both ways.

 

[JAL]

Philosophically ....

Authorship requires intent. Intent isn't shown. So your argument doesn't really carry.

Evil also requires intent. Intent isn't shown. So the author isn't necessarily evil.

Within the broader context I'd agree with you that God intentionally planting evil intent into someone with the ultimate intent of evil isn't really a manageable view.

However, there's a range of manageable views that make sense of this.

God could intentionally plant evil intent with the ultimate intent of good.

God is a liar if He calls someone “guilty” for an evil disposition which HE instituted within their hearts. Suppose you had a drug that efficaciously causes people to murder. You implant this drug in people – and then blame them for it? Blame yourself.

Now I would agree with you that is logically possible that if God is a non-selfsufficient being (i.e. He has emotional needs), that He could be warranted, if His needs so drove Him irrevocably, to institute a world full of unjust suffering, even to put people in hell to satisfy His own need for glorification, assuming He kept that suffering to the minimum to which His needs so drove Him (it would be morally wrong for Him to exacerbate it).

But the Calvinist views God as self-sufficient. In this view He has no emotional need that would justifiably drive Him to take advantage of human beings – and then dishonestly call them “guilty”!


And as for your claim that authorship requires intent, I think it is unclear or even unintelligible. If a person writes a book, he is the author of that book, regardless of his intent. I would agree with you that we have to look at His intent and His needs to determine whether the authorship was an evil act or a warranted one (one driven by His needs).

Within the broader context I'd agree with you that God intentionally planting evil intent into someone with the ultimate intent of evil isn't really a manageable view.

However, there's a range of manageable views that make sense of this.

God could intentionally plant evil intent with the ultimate intent of good.

As for God implanting an evil intent, looks to me like you need to read your Bible. James says that God is neither temptible nor tempts anyone.

A good God creating a reality that results in evil had better be an explanation -- else there would be no explanation for why God is good. Free will doesn't cover for this deduction.

I really don’t know what you are saying here. By the way, Calvinists have done nothing convincing to show that free will can be completely purged from theology. If there is no free will, there is no real guilt. Period.

God could also intentionally create limited beings. Sin being a lack of good, a limited human creature could reach the state of sin through his limitations. Again, there's no clear way to establish that limited creatures can't conclude a good God -- because of course we're already admitting the point of limited existence. Free will doesn't cover for this deduction.

Now you are trying to come up with an obscure definition of sin to cover up the whole contradiction. (A favorite technique of theologians is to use obscure, highly technical language to avoid charges of contradiction). Sin is now “human limitations”. Absurd. If God creates me finite or weak, He is the one responsible. He is then a liar to judge me immoral or deserving of hell for my God-given limitations.


You continue to obscure the matter with this statement:

Sin being a lack of good, it may well be that anything independent of God is sin. That would smash human free will to pieces -- it would be free of dependency on God.

Sin is freely willed evil. Any other definition of sin is unintelligible. Now I will accept, in a loose sense, that an act resulting from an addiction (and thus uncontrollable) may be also called sin, even though not freely willed – as long as the addiction originated in freely willed sin which CAUSED the addiction.

 

[Rick Otto]

Sin is freely willed evil

No such thing. Sin is bondage, nothin' free at all about it.
What is obscure to you is that responsibility & guilt are not inextricably linked.
Once you understand that, you'll have a clue how predestination doesn't eliminate personal responsibility.

 

[JAL]

No such thing. Sin is bondage, nothin' free at all about it.
What is obscure to you is that responsibility & guilt are not inextricably linked.
Once you understand that, you'll have a clue how predestination doesn't eliminate personal responsibility.

Yes, I remember this silly argument of yours a while back. You said that even though a parent is responsible for his adolescents (society holds him accountable for their acts in some cases) the parent is not necessarily guilty of those acts, depending on the situation. My reply is the same as it was before. Let’s lay the blame where it is due. If the parent was faithful as a parent, he is not to blame (society’s imperfect justice system might indeed blame him, but this is really an error).

But if the parent somehow instigated the children to do the deed – and thus the deed is by his “sovereign ordination” - he is guilty, and he is a liar if he blames the children. Anyway you slice it, if you make God’s sovereignty so absolute that men have no free will, you make Him a liar for blaming us.


I realize there are passages which seem to construe God as the instigator. I don’t have time to deal with them one by one – I can only say that we MUST resolve them to avoid contradicting God’s holiness.

I will deal with one of them here. “God hardened Pharoah’s heart.” We could perhaps speculate that the term “hardened” is hyperbolic here. Or that the language is techiclly imprecise due to the brevity of Scripture. A good example of technical imprecision is when Scripture says that Christ died for our sin. The death is not “really” what atoned for us, if you think about it. Christ was suffering until the moment of death. Thus the moment of death was the CESSATION of suffering. What “really” atoned for us was the suffering PRECEDING the moment of death. Scripture sometimes sacrifices technical precision for the sake of brevity - this is a very practical usage of language.

With the reality of technical imprecision in mind, consider the following solution. One way to harden Pharoah’s heart is to allow a demon to do it. In this case, it’s certainly not God’s fault, and in fact “hardening” is probably imprecise because, arguably, it’s really not even Pharoah’s fault. Chances are the only one to blame here is the demon. True God allowed the opportunity, but such is the nature of allowing free will.