And I submit that it is dangerous territory to claim that God wrote the Bible.
I am simply going by the "type" that Reformed Christians call God. If there is evil, God must have thought it necessary for evil to exist. He created conditions for evil to exist and, by His irresistible will, made it happen.
It can be debated if one can have a will without a need, in which case even the Biblical "will" of God is but an anthropomorphism.
If all your needs are satisfied, what drives you? We can infer into this because the Bible says we were created in His image and endowed with reason so that we may understand. But then the whole thing is thrown out the window when God says "your thoughts are not my thoughts." So, what is there to "understand?"
Of course, we can't imply that God's creation was a senseless act, but a determined one. Thus, if God willed evil into the world, which He hates (!), then it must be inferred that it was absolutely necessary that evil exist, and if there were a better way God would have chosen that.
But the Bible reminds us in Isaiah that it is (the Hebrew) God who creates evil (actually calamity) to happen to us. So, right from the Old Testament, Isiah tells us that God creates evil, and you are denying it. What gives, FK?
Then comes Christ, our God, and he overturns the money changers' ables in the Temple. If this is not telling the Jews they had it all wrong I don't know what is. But you will tell me that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Sure he did, but what is law and the prophets?
Mat 7:12 tells us what that is, and it's not what you seem to imply. The verse says
Not Jeremiah, or Joshua, smiting everything in their path, or God creating "evil," BUT use your own standard of what you would not want done to you! Leaving it up to us to decide?
How can you believe in an omnipotent and controlling God if you also believe Matthew 7:12?!? Is this not your objection that that the "Apostolic" God is a weak God acting to accommodate men? Well, that's precisely what Mat 7:12 tells us. How come you never mention that verse?
In Rom 13:8, Paul says
Is this the same law, as witnessed by Moses in Leviticus? If your son or daughter are disrespectful, Moses' law says you can kill them. Because you love them?!?
And get this, in Galatians 5:14, Paul says:
So, when you speak of the Law you mean Leviticus; when Orthodox Christians speak if the law, they speak of love of God, and this was unknown to the Jews. St. Paul says that the "righteousness of God apart from the law, has been made known." (Rom 3:21)
Kosta: Where are you getting this from?
FK: From your post. What else could you possibly mean but that God loves satan if you are criticizing me for saying that satan is God's enemy?
I never said He loves Satan. I simply questioned your assertion that God made His own enemy. Since there is nothing good in satan, there is nothing God can love in him. But He didn't create Satan with a purpose to hate him, because that would imply that God, who is love, was motivated by hate.
YES and YES! The Bible is filled with examples of God using the lost to accomplish His plan. The only way around these many many passages is to disregard them
Yes, if they fail the Christ-like test of the Gospels, is you can't find the love your neighbor as yourself in them. Christ preached peace and love, something that irritates and is quite opposite of the Zeus-like God of the OT the Protestants believe in.
Why do you say "dangerous"? I have the evidence of the Bible itself saying that all scripture is God-breathed. I also have the evidence of God's Church, all true believers, virtually unanimously accepting the proposition that the Bible is GOD'S revelation from Him TO us. The Bible isn't man's holy word, it is GOD'S Holy word. Christians everywhere agree to that. What do you have on your side that would make my (our) position dangerous?
It can be debated if one can have a will without a need, in which case even the Biblical "will" of God is but an anthropomorphism. If all your needs are satisfied, what drives you?
To your first statement, how so? You are the one who is attaching human characteristics to God. The issue is "need" versus "want". God wants time to play out in a certain way so He is taking the steps necessary to ensure that. It is not because some outside force is compelling Him, or that God is lacking in some way such that He is making up for it. It is simply that God wants "this" so God is going to get "this".
We can infer into this because the Bible says we were created in His image and endowed with reason so that we may understand. But then the whole thing is thrown out the window when God says "your thoughts are not my thoughts." So, what is there to "understand?"
I'm not sure I understand the question. We will understand everything that God wants us to understand, but that will not include an exhaustive knowledge of the universe since we are finite. For one thing God wants us to understand (eventually) every jot and tittle in the Bible.
Of course, we can't imply that God's creation was a senseless act, but a determined one. Thus, if God willed evil into the world, which He hates (!), then it must be inferred that it was absolutely necessary that evil exist, and if there were a better way God would have chosen that.
Well, there may be some semantics here. I would agree that what happens is necessary for God to get what He wants, or else it wouldn't happen, and that God chose the best way to get it. I just don't want to give any impression that I think God is compelled, or cornered into anything. His will is absolutely sovereign and free, above all other wills in the universe.
But the Bible reminds us in Isaiah that it is (the Hebrew) God who creates evil (actually calamity) to happen to us. So, right from the Old Testament, Isiah tells us that God creates evil, and you are denying it. What gives, FK?
Perhaps you refer to this from the KJV:
Isaiah 45:7 : I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I think you may have decided on one and only one view of the clause "create evil". It is meant in terms of God's sovereignty and that everything that happens is by God's design. When there is peace it is because of God. When there is war it is likewise through God's wishes. It does NOT mean that God is the author of evil. Barnes' explanation isn't bad:
Isaiah 45:7 [And create evil] The parallelism here shows that this is not to be understood in the sense of all evil, but of that which is the opposite of peace and prosperity. That is, God directs judgments, disappointments, trials, and calamities; he has power to suffer the mad passions of people to rage, and to afflict nations with war; he presides over adverse as well as prosperous events. The passage does not prove that God is the author of moral evil, or sin, and such a sentiment is abhorrent to the general strain of the Bible, and to all just views of the character of a holy God.
The totality of scriptures is absolutely clear that God is not the author of evil, but it also says that God is absolutely sovereign and in complete control of everything. To some these are mutually exclusive ideas, but it is in fact what the Bible teaches, so we must decide whether to accept what God has taught or to reject it in favor of our own views. BTW, the Isaiah verse is supported by this:
Amos 3:6 : 6 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? KJV
The principle is sovereignty, not that God does evil.
But you will tell me that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Sure he did, but what is law and the prophets?
Well, actually HE will tell you that:
Matt 5:17 : 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I have seen different explanations on how the Law and the Prophets (and the Psalms) are divided up, but the overwhelming consensus that I have seen is that when Jesus uses these terms He is referring to the entirety of the OT.
Mat 7:12 tells us what that is, and it's not what you seem to imply. The verse says "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Wow! Do unto others as you would have others do unto you!
For your purposes that is an irrational oversimplification of the intent of the verse. Do you really reduce the entirety of the OT to "do unto others..."?
How can you believe in an omnipotent and controlling God if you also believe Matthew 7:12?!?
We obviously interpret that verse very differently. Summaries are nice and easy to use and indeed valuable, but God would have only given us summaries if that was the whole of what He wanted to give us. He obviously wanted us to have more. Summaries are a place to start, not to finish. Perhaps that is where part of the problem is.
Is this not your objection that that the "Apostolic" God is a weak God acting to accommodate men? Well, that's precisely what Mat 7:12 tells us. How come you never mention that verse?
Why do you think Matt. 7:12 has God accommodating man? I don't see that anywhere.
So, when you speak of the Law you mean Leviticus; when Orthodox Christians speak if the law, they speak of love of God, and this was unknown to the Jews.
When I speak of the Law and the Prophets (and the Psalms) I mean what Jesus meant, the entirety of the OT. It appears that the Orthodox ONLY work with summaries, thus rendering the totality of God's revelation irrelevant. ....... To suggest that righteous Jews did not know the love of God is unfathomable. I wouldn't even know where to start with that one.
St. Paul says that the "righteousness of God apart from the law, has been made known." (Rom 3:21)
Yes, ....... and? In context, Paul is obviously saying that this righteousness comes by faith, NOT by doing works of the Law, such as doing unto others, etc. I'm not sure what your point is.