Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God sought Moses to kill him | Ex 4:24 | DocTrinsograce | 198348 | ||
Hi, Budderfligh... No, I don't believe there is any passage in Scripture that attributes God as the cause of evil. Quite the contrary: to assert that God was the cause of sin would be blasphemous, for He is perfectly holy and righteous in every regard. The old Baptist divines put it this way, "From all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will. Yet in so doing He does not become in any sense the author of sin, nor does He share responsibility for sin with sinners. Neither, by reason of His decree, is the will of any creature whom He has made violated; nor is the free working of second causes put aside; rather is it established. In all these matters the divine wisdom appears, as also does God's power and faithfulness in effecting that which He has purposed. (Numbers 23:19; Isaiah 46:10; John 19:11; Acts 4:27-28; Romans 9:15, 18; Ephesians 1:3-5, 11; Hebrews 6:17; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5)" (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 3, Paragraph 1) Note that God decrees all things, but in such a way that He isn't the author of evil and doesn't share responsibility for it. He also does so in a mysterious way that allows the will of His creatures to be exercised in what we would think of as "free." Note the insertion of the statement "nor is the free working of second causes put aside, rather is it established." This bit gets into an area of thought called causality. The church came into existence couched in the context of Hellenistic Greek culture. Consequently, you see a whole lot of Greek thinking expressed through the New Testament. When you talk about Greek thinking, you naturally pretty much talk Aristotle. The early church would have been as aware of Aristotle as you and I are aware of Abraham Lincoln. (That's not a perfect analogy. We generally think more highly of Lincoln in a personally and morally.) We can see Aristotle's methods being used by Paul, for example. Throughout Christian history Aristotle has been used, sometimes too far -- especially when the doctrine of sola Scriptura became obscured. Without getting into too much detail the idea is kind of like setting up a series of dominoes. When you push the first one with your finger, the dominoes all fall in sequence. In one sense all you did is push over one domino. In another sense, you pushed over all the dominoes. God created the angels and man, Lucifer fell then deceived Eve, Eve sinned, Adam followed in sin, etc. There are a clear set of causal relationships, but the Scriptures assure us that the moral culpability does not work backwards in such a way as to impugn the moral excellency of the Creator. I'm probably doing a very poor job of explaining "secondary causes." It's hard to get into it all in this venue. If you want a good starting place dealing with theodicy, you might try: http://www.theopedia.com/Theodicy By the way, when people start talking about fairness, then ask "Whose fairness?" As Creator, God can and does dictate what is fair. But who would want anyone other than God to do that? He is perfectly knowledgeable, perfectly wise, perfectly holy, etc. etc. Besides, what's all this stuff about fairness anyway. Anyone who wants fairness from God doesn't understand the disaster of the fall and the horrendous nature of sin. The most fair doctrine in Scripture is the doctrine of hell! What we desperately need is not fairness... what we desperately need is mercy! In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | God sought Moses to kill him | Ex 4:24 | budderfligh | 198356 | ||
Hello Doc, Thank you for your answer. I had to smile when I read what you had written about secondary causes. This is a concept that I understand very well since my profession is in Insurance. Some of the terms I use daily came to my mind while reading your post such as "direct loss", "proximate cause" and "indirect loss". A direct loss is a loss caused by an insured peril caused by an unbroken chain of events called a proximate cause. For example, the electricity goes out so a woman lights a candle for light, she sets the candle too close to the draperies, they catch fire and the home is damaged. The proximate cause would be the chain of events leading to the damage in the home. The direct cause of the loss would be the fire. This loss could lead to a secondary or indirect loss such as the need for another place to live until the home is repaired which would mean money spent out of pocket, or an indirect loss. I think you did a bang up job of explaining secondary causes and I will check out the website on theodicy. You said that you don't believe any scripture attributes God as the cause of evil. What is your interpretaion of Is. 45:7? (That's the verse I couldn't locate.) I think I understand what you're saying about the domino theory but even if this is the case then isn't God still responsible for the first domino, thereby making him responsible for all the others that fell? This verse also brings to my mind the age-old discussion as to whether there can be light without darkness or good without evil. Would we know light without darkness? Would we recognize good if we didn't have something to compare it with? I do not mean to say that God is the author of sin, merely that I don't have a problem recognizing that He is the creator of all (even that first domino) and I keep going back to Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. In light of that scripture I would whole heartedly agree with your last paragraph. Those who do not believe a just God could allow Hell are simply not considering the definition of true justice meted out by a righteous God. And when you touch on mercy, grace cannot be far behind! God bless and keep you, budderfligh |
||||||
3 | God sought Moses to kill him | Ex 4:24 | DocTrinsograce | 198368 | ||
Dear budderfligh, You've got a superior handle on practical causality than most of us, that is certain! The terminology used in the insurance field must be similar to that used in the legal field. The thought of culpability from a legal standpoint crossed my mind as I was composing my post to you, but I have to admit that I've not really studied the question. American jurisprudence has its roots in Biblical principles. (The Puritans, shortly after settling in New England, founded Harvard University and, a year later, Princeton University. At that time a seminary degree was almost the same as a law degree. The notion being that justice could never be understood outside of a clear understanding of God, the giver of law, and His justice.) Nevertheless, your examples and terminology are a great help to us. Thank you for their explanation. In Aristotle's causality the following terms are used: material cause (the material out of which a product is made), formal cause (the blueprint or a plan of the end product), final cause (the purpose for which the end product is made), efficient cause (the one making the end product), and instrumental cause (the means by which the end product is made). The Reformers, being well familiar with Aristotle's causality, expressed the "Five Solas" in these categories: Sola fide, the material cause; sola scriptura, the formal cause; soli Deo gloria, the final cause; sola gratia, the efficient cause; and solus Christus, the instrumental cause. You asked how I interpreted Isaiah 45:7. We believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scripture as a whole. In other words, all of Scripture is a single, cogent communication. It is a rational whole. Despite our first impressions, the Scripture never contradicts itself. Consequently, we can bring to bear on any particular passage, any other passage discussing the same topic. (This is what the theologians call "the analogy of faith.") We know that God is never morally culpable for sin (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 145:17; Isaiah 6:3; James 1:13-18). So our interpretation of Isaiah 45:7 must be in harmony with the fact of God's perfect holiness and righteousness. One thing that might help us with a harmonious rendering is to look at the word evil. Note that the prophet is not contrasting good and evil as in, for example, Isaiah 5:20. Instead he contrasts peace and evil. Therefore, it would not harm the sense of this passage to translate this word as calamity (as has been done in the NASB and ESV). In other words, God is declaring His authority and might to Israel. He is the mighty sustainer (Isaiah 45:1), defender and guide (v2), universal God (vv3 and 6), source of all authority and rightful elector (v4), provider (v5), sovereign Lord (v7), and creator (v8). (Interesting that Paul pulls this same argument of God's universal, sovereign authority in election and redemption (vv8-9) in Romans 9:20-21. His arguments give us a great deal of insight into this passage, too.) Hence, verse 7 is specifically saying, that God creates light and darkness (authority over creation) and is the source of peace and calamity (authority over nations). Now, there are numerous places in Scripture where God actually effects things that cause us puzzlement, and challenge our presuppositions and assumptions. Of course, we should expect that, given the limitations of our intelligence, the context from which we necessarily make observations, and our overall deficiencies because of the plenary vitiation of sin. I'll briefly comment on the question regarding the contrast between opposites (light and dark, good and evil) as a means of instruction. This shifts us into "Why" questions. For the reasons above, plus the nature of revelation itself (Deuteronomy 29:29), "Why" questions are particularly difficult. But I'd have to say that evil exists for many other reasons beyond the matter of communicating to us the nature of good. God uses it to accomplish a number of things, including His glory (Proverbs 16:4; Psalm 76:10; Romans 9:14-24; etc.), our good (Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28), etc. Even His righteous punishment of evil demonstrates His holiness. But the discussion of all that will take us far afield indeed! In Him, Doc |
||||||