GOD, EVIL, AND YOU: PART TWO
Time to learn how to fish!
Proposition One: All “evil” consists of pain and suffering.
1. Discuss.
2. Fill out the categories below.
A. Human pain and suffering:
1. Individual:
a. Physical:
b. Mental:
c. Financial:
d. Relational:
e. Demonic:
2. Corporate:
a. Family:
b. Tribe:
c. Church:
d. Community:
e. Nation:
f. International:
g. Global:
B. Animal pain and suffering:
C. Insect pain and suffering:
D. Vegetation pain and suffering:
E. Environment pain and suffering:
Task: Relate Job’s pain and suffering to the above chart.
========================================
Proposition Two: While all “sin” is evil, not all “evil” is sin.
1. Discuss.
2. Fill out the categories below:
A. Some things are “evil” because they are the results of sin:
1. Results of Satan’s sin:
2. Results of Adam’s sin:
3. Results of ancestor’s sins:
4. Results of political leaders’ sins:
5. Results of religious leaders’ sins:
6. Results of your own sins:
7. Results of other people’s sins:
8. Results from animal and insect attacks:
Task: A dog bites your hand. Is your pain and suffering “evil?” Are they “sins?”
Is the dog “evil?” Did he commit a “sin?”
========================================
Proposition Three: 2 Cor. 7:1 divides sin into two categories: “defilements of the flesh and spirit.”
1. Discuss:
2. Fill out the categories below:
a. Defilements of the flesh: list them below.
b. Defilements of the spirit: list them below.
32 Comments, Comment or Ping
Travis
Proposition One: All “evil” consists of pain and suffering.
1. Discuss.
*First I thank God that he is soveriegn over all things. ‘
**I could only think of one thing on our list that doesnt CONSIST of pain and suffering, that would be Satan, he is evil but does he consist of pain and suffering??
***The temptation is to put death under a majority of these catagories, as the ultimate pain and suffering but it all depends on how you look at death, not that we are notallowed to experenc pain but is it the ultimate pain and suffering, No… Hell is!
2. Fill out the categories below.
A. Human pain and suffering:
1. Individual:
a. Physical:torture, burned, crucified, attacked by an animal, hell
b. Mental: condemnation, demonic, battle of the law of God/sin
c. Financial: robbery, destruction, stolen Identity, law suits
d. Relational: friend sins against you, unbelievers
e. Demonic: possesion of unbelievers, mental physical torture
2. Corporate:
a. Family: A death, sickness, lack of food
b. Tribe: food supply, sickness, plague, death, war
c. Church: torture, oppression from state and fellow belivers, laws
d. Community: natural damages, death, sickness, war, law breakers
e. Nation: war, economy, natural disasters, abortion, murder
f. International: war, natural disasters, trading, hatred
g. Global: using up resources, plagues, wars
B. Animal pain and suffering: only if you are not giving selling or
eating the animal
C. Insect pain and suffering: HUH
D. Vegetation pain and suffering: just wastefulness
E. Environment pain and suffering: wastefulness
Task: Relate Job’s pain and suffering to the above chart.
STILL READING JOB ILL GET BACK TO THIS PART
========================================
Proposition Two: While all “sin” is evil, not all “evil” is sin.
1. Discuss. All things work out for good for those who trust in the Lord
The Lord gives and the Lord takes, Blessed be the Name of the Lord
2. Fill out the categories below:
A. Some things are “evil” because they are the results of sin:
1. Results of Satan’s sin: cast to the earth with the angels, able to tempt and posses, eternal death
2. Results of Adam’s sin: nakedness, death, enmity with God and Satan
3. Results of ancestor’s sins: War, destruction of earth, plagues, anger from God
4. Results of political leaders’ sins: decline in moralty, death, persicution, anger of God, jail, empeachment
5. Results of religious leaders’ sins: bitterness, pride, hatred, church splits, jail, bad witness to the world
6. Results of your own sins: condemnation of the mind, jail, lack of faith, seperation from God (unbeliever), division of family, discipline, bad witness to the world
7. Results of other people’s sins: jail, loss of life, bitterness
8. Results from animal and insect attacks: sickness, death, crops being lost, physical pain
Task: A dog bites your hand. Is your pain and suffering “evil?” Are they “sins?”
*No my pain is not evil, as far as the definition goes this evil doesnt fall into those catagories, and this evil is not condemned by scripture, we are never promised that we will be free from physical harm (evil).
Is the dog “evil?” Did he commit a “sin?”
*the only way the dog is evil is if it is possesed, other that that, the dog is not at peace with us because we are not in Eden. As far as I know Christ didnt come to save the dogs from thier sin.
========================================
Proposition Three: 2 Cor. 7:1 divides sin into two categories: “defilements of the flesh and spirit.”
1. Discuss:
***I looked up different commentaries to see who believed what about the exegesis of this verse. First I didnt really understand Flesh and Spirit, so i looked at the greek words and the related word is scripture and that didnt help either because it is used differently But I could narrow it down becasue two of the definitions made no sense what so ever.
Flesh- Body/nature/actions
Spirit- thinking/emotions/feelings
here is what some well know evangelical pastors teachon 2 Cor. 7:1:
*Chuckles Smith- Cleanse your mind
*Ray Steadman- Skips it
*Matthew Henery- Body and Mind
*Forerunner Commen. - spiritual and secular (neo platonism)
*Tennessee Temple Dr. Turner- stay away from friendship with the world
*New Bible Commentary- Cease from the fleshly sins and or dont follow satan.
2. Fill out the categories below:
a. Defilements of the flesh: list them below. adultry, masterbation, idol worship, murder…
b. Defilements of the spirit: list them below. lust, blasphemy, lack of self control, heresy
Feb 6th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Travis,
Love you, Bro. But, you responded too quickly and some of your answers show it. You need to let ideas simmer on the back burner of your mind for a while. This is what it means to “meditate” on the Word. That is why it takes me several years to write a book. My questions are meant to make people think before they speak. Take the dog bite as an example.
I always begin with questions, not answers. If you don’t understand the question, you will not know when you found the answer! The art of asking questions is absolutely necessary to exegesis.
My question: A dog bites your hand. Is your pain and suffering “evil?” Are they “sins?” I now add the question: Is the dog “evil?” I hoped that someone would see that question and add it to the list. Alas, no one thought ahead to that crucial question.
Your answer: *No my pain is not evil, as far as the definition goes this evil doesn’t fall into those categories, and this evil is not condemned by scripture, we are never promised that we will be free from physical harm (evil).
My discussion: When we get to the step when we exegete Scripture, you will see that the Bible does refers to some animals as “evil.” The dog was “evil” according to the Bible. The Leviticus Code even had a death penalty for “evil” animals. Yet, animals are not “sinners.” They are not moral beings who face a Day of Judgment. Thus while animals are capable of doing evil, they cannot sin. Let this simmer in the pot on the backburner of your mind.
Feb 7th, 2008
agogley
I’m still trying to absorb the whole thing…I can’t even begin to answer the questions yet.
Feb 7th, 2008
Travis
Yeah I need to meditate, something I am not to good at unless it grabs my attention(also something I am repenting of) I am somewhat intimidated by the knowledge of people and the vast depth of scripture so I feel I need to, sometimes, make it seem like I really have a deep knowledge of something, when the reality is I am just scratching the surface, and in this case getting the task done quickly.
This intimidation was a main reason other than comeing up with all the finances that I didnt attend CBUS this year, and I know my own study memorization and meditaion habbits.
I want to learn and glorify God, but I think sometimes I don’t have the ability to, the understanding and wisdom. I will pray and ask the Lord to give me wisdom and a filling of his spirit so that I can learn more in depth and truly worship God in this exercise.
Feb 7th, 2008
agogley
Travis.
Amen, brother! I ask the same for myself.
Don’t feel too bad about the finances for CBUS. I haven’t been paying for credits myself, even though I’ve been purchasing a lot of the course material through Faithdefenders. I was recently in CA, and stopped by the Faithdefenders bookstore. I realized that just to purchase all the course material, I was going to have to fork out some serious dinero. So now I purchase stuff when I can, I subscribe to the Crusaders Club and try to listen to Dr. Morey’s sermons online (note to website people: make it so we can download the sermons and burn them to CDs!!!).
Feb 8th, 2008
Derek Manning
Just a couple of thoughts as I have thinking about this post.
First, all pain and suffering is not evil. Some pain and suffering is good. Imagine if Adam did not have pain, and sat on a cactus or a fire? Therefore some of the pain we suffer is necessary and by extension good. So based on this I reject the first premise. More to come.
Thank you Dr. Bob for this exercise. It is a great challenge to my little gray cells.
Feb 8th, 2008
OvercommiTad2theWord
Agogley,
Type ‘n click your way to “Sermons” at http://www.faithcommunityoc.org/.
Feb 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Dr. Morey has taught me that when answering questions regarding metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and so on, that we must approach the subject-in-question in view of the biblical perspective: Creation, Fall, Redemption (see disc 1 of Table Talk Series 1 for a lengthy discussion of this). This threefold view presents a multi-perspectival ontology (nature) of evil.
Metaphysics: What “is” evil?
Epistemology: What can be “known” about evil? Can you “know” anything about evil? Is evil “knowable?” etc.
Ethics/Morals: Is evil “good?” Is evil “bad?” Is evil “right” or “wrong?” etc.
Aesthetics: Is evil “ugly?” Is evil “beautiful?” etc.
So, pain and suffering, as a logical set, meaning that they are bundled up and used together (not split - pain *or* suffering) as one “set,” must be viewed in terms of C/F/R. Was there “pain and suffering” at Creation or before the Fall? Did “pain and suffering” enter the universe at the Fall? If not, was it affected by the Fall? Will “pain and suffering” remain in the redeemed state? Will “pain and suffering” exist on the new earth? Did Christ’s atonement apply to pain and suffering? See? (not Spanish for yes :)) - noetic…
Derek, to reject the first proposition (All “evil” consists of pain and suffering.) based on prelapsarian evil (prior to the Fall) alone, and then base a universal conclusion from prelapsarian metaphysics that applies to postlapsarian ethics of evil, is a category fallacy.
To say that “some pain and suffering is *good,” is an ethics/morals statement and does not answer the metaphysical question of what evil is. Dr. Morey’s proposition includes the terms “all,” “consists of,” and describes the attributes of evil as they pertain to ontological evil. Thus your rejection may have been premature and I would invite you to rethink your rejection in light of this comment.
Also, your syllogism assumes that evil *cannot* be good in any sense whatsoever. If “all” pain and suffering is “not evil” because “some” pain and suffering” is good,” then you will encounter difficulty when confronted with such passages as “God used *it* (being evil) for good” or “all things (including evil) are working together for our *good* for them that…”
The gray cells are certainly fizzling at this point, but to His glory alone, we must bravely allow ourselves to be challenged. For God has gifted us with a great teacher that cares so much about us that he is asking the big questions while monitoring our interaction lest we fall into error and even worse, apostasy!
P.S. Dr. Morey has nick-named me “Skull-full-o-mush!” Malt-O-Meal, anyone!
Feb 8th, 2008
agogley
Overcomitted: Praise the Lord, my wish has been fulfilled!
Stephen: Why does he call you that? I don’t quite get it.
Feb 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
I don’t know, OverComitTAD calls me that too now after he heard Dr. Morey say it. Maybe a joke, maybe full of mush…
Feb 9th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Ah!!!!!!! The little grey cells are vibrating at last.
1. Derek is correct to begin with the issue of whether there was pain, suffering, and even death in Eden before the Fall. If you have not read C.S. Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain, you need to do so. Search Amazon for a copy.
2. The fact that the Bible has “pain and suffering” before the Fall means that while it is evil, it was not sinful. That pain and suffering served a good purpose does not negate that it was an evil. When one animal killed and ate another animal, was there pain and suffering? Yes. Was it “evil” for the animal that got eaten? Yes. But, both predators and prey animals were created by God to maintain a zoological balance. Some evils were programmed into the creation order from the beginning.
3. The issue gets complicated because some silly Christians think that there was no pain, suffering or death before the Fall. Even the dinosaurs were vegetarians! I have written on this issue elsewhere.
4. That pain and suffering can be both evil and good at the same time needs to be considered. I had a car accident in PA that broke many bones and it took a year for me to walk. I had a LOT of pain and suffering and still have some today. The evil man that hit me lied and his friends on the jury ignored my and John’s testimony. At lunch members of the jury ate with the guy at his table, laughing and having a good time! I ended up with nothing for the pain and suffering! But Rom. 8:28 revealed to me that my pain and suffering and all the evil I endured were ordained by God from all eternity with good in mind. It was that accident that led me to move to CA. Looking back, the accident, the pain, the suffering, the evil jury, etc., were used to move me to CA. But that does not negate the fact that a broken leg, hip, and knee were evil.
5. Stephen is right on target that we must “divide and conquer” the issue. But that should be done after we discuss evil before the Fall.
Discuss: What was your response to Lewis’ book?
The existence of pain, suffering, and death before the Fall.
Feb 9th, 2008
Mother
I am in awe over biblical thought.com. This “blogging” is new to an old dinosaur like me. Would never dream of engaging with content but love what I’m learning. At first it seemed like a bit of voyuerism.
I settle down for the evening, make a hot cup of tea and anxiously click to “THE” blog. “What will my sponge mind soak up tonight”?
When I log off; sometimes I’m chuckling and other times my brain hurts from trying to keep up with the teaching.
Just wanted to say thank-you from all of us on the silent sidelines (I know you’re out there). This study of Dr. Bob’s and all your input is fascinating or should I say, “Sinfully” delicious!
Mother
Feb 9th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Glad you finally hopped on here Mother…I agree it is a lot to take in but very fascinating …and worthwhile! Thanks to ALL who make it possible…Deo Soli Gloria!
Feb 9th, 2008
Travis
your going to have break it down for me.
Are we going back to before creation because thats where we need to start in order to see when evil started?
We can go back and see that Satan fell before adam and eve fell. So we have this evil that is not fleashly evil. so my next questions..
Metaphysics: What “is” evil? Is there a difference between man and angel commiting evil?
Epistemology: What can be “known” about evil? Can you “know” anything about evil? Is evil “knowable?” etc. Is this perticular evil knowable or is it the same evil that we experience and can know about?
these questions have to be answered in my mind starting with the first known evil, because, wouldnt this give us understanding of metaphysics and Epistemology of evil?
Feb 9th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis, you asked: “Are we going back to before creation because thats where we need to start in order to see when evil started?”
I believe the study at this point is better described as “pain, suffering, and death before the Fall,” rather than “evil before creation.” As Dr. Morey points out in #2 above, “The fact that the Bible has “pain and suffering” before the Fall means that while it is evil, it was not sinful. That pain and suffering served a good purpose does not negate that it was an evil.”
Let us discuss the existence of pain, suffering, and death before the Fall. Or “evil” before the Fall. A popular position out there is that there was no pain, suffering, and death before the Fall; that those are results of the Fall. There is also the idea that Adam was created immortal, that he would have lived forever had he not eaten the forbidden fruit, but because he did…and so forth using Romans 5:12 to support it.
Above, Dr. Morey says, “Some evils were programmed into the creation order from the beginning.” I am popping brain cells trying to exhaust every possible form of evil before the fall in addition to the animal/zoological balance reference. Hmmm, is the death of plants evil? If so, would it be considered “programmed evil” for trees and plants in the garden to require the “tending” Adam was commanded in Gen. 2:15? The tending certainly presupposes death, and if death is evil, would this not qualify?
It’s been a few years, but I remember in Lewis’ book something to the effect of, “I would have written a few more chapters on the problem of pain, if I didn’t have such a bad tooth-ache.” Or something like that. But I remember lights going on when I first came across that statement.
Feb 9th, 2008
Travis
I seem to have exhusted my knowladge, I dont know where to go I thought about evil and pain, I didnt even think about these things. I dont know the scripture good enough to understand them. I havnt and cant read some of these books so I guess im out of the loop.
This is really the only questions I can think of, was there pain and suffering before creation? And the fall? How? So thats what im trying to look into.
I dont even know where to begin with weather or not animals and plants can feel or commit evil?
I guess my ultimate question is how do we analyze these things with out previous knowladge?
Feb 10th, 2008
agogley
The fact that the Bible has “pain and suffering” before the Fall.
Do we have some verses on this? I’d like to look more closely at this aspect.
“The tending certainly presupposes death, and if death is evil, would this not qualify” We speculate that it presupposes death. But it could mean other things as well. There is a lot more to tending plants than simply keeping the plant alive. I only say this because we ought to be careful in making assumptions.
Feb 10th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“There is a lot more to tending plants than simply keeping the plant alive.”
True, like pruning, mulching, raking, etc. These are the tasks I referred to that presuppose death.
Feb 10th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Travis,
1. You wrote “Satan fell before Adam and Eve fell.” This settles the question of whether evil existed BEFORE the Fall. Evil was alive a well long before Adam sinned.
2. Satan’s sin was “conceit” (1 Tim. 3:6). The angels who followed were evil as well.
3. Satan and his demons entered the Garden of Eden, which proves that sin and evil were in the Garden before the Fall.
4. “Evil” in the sense of rebellion against God and a sinful nature entered the Garden when the Devil and his demons migrated to this planet.
5. “Evil” was also present in the Garden in the sense of pain, suffering, and death.
a. God created animals, man, and, yes, even insects and plants
to some extent, with the capacity to experience pain. This pain
warned them of possible physical damage. When an animal or Adam
sat on a sharp stone, they felt pain in their ass. Their
suffering was to alert them to get off the stone. Pain is a gift
from God.
b. We must remember that if animals and man could experience
pleasure, they could also experience pain.
c. Adam had to deal with dead animals and plants in the Garden.
This is why when God threatened him that if he ate of a certain
tree he would DIE, this implied two things.
(1. Man was not created immortal but mortal. He could die.
(2. Adam understood what God meant when He spoke of death.
d. We must also remember that the Garden was a zoological Park
or Preserve that had walls surrounding it to protect man from
the nasty dinosaurs outside the park. Outside the Garden, big
fish ate smaller fish, birds ate the fish, and dinosaurs ate the
birds and each other.
Feb 11th, 2008
agogley
Thanks Dr. Morey, that’s helpful.
Feb 11th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
First, I would like to thank Dr. Morey for making his Romans class available for free! I have spent hundreds of dollars buying his books and lectures and I was planning on spending the 400 bucks to audit this course some time in the future because I know from experience that it would be definitely worth it! Ask my wife, I was ecstatic when I found out that Faith Defenders was making the Romans class available for download.
I am currently auditing a seminary level class in systematic theology and lo and behold the doctrine of creation was the first to be discussed. The professor talked about different pagan views about creation and then went on to discuss theistic views of creation. While discussing different old earth creation theories like Kline’s framework view, the day age theory, and the gap theory his main argument against them was the problem of evil. He argued that all of these theories permit animal death pre-fall. Now he is a young earther who when asked by a student to describe the clinching argument that persuaded him on his position of a young earth, said that it was the fact that evil and death couldn’t have existed prior to the fall. He was also convinced that anyone arguing for prelapsarian evil had to be either a theistic evolustionist or an old earther.
I had been listening to Dr. Morey’s lectures on God, Evil, and You prior to the class and he discusses pre-fall evil quite eloquently on disk 5, so of course I was squirming in my seat. Dr. Morey believes in a young earth and has good and sufficient Biblical reason to believe in the mortality of man, animals, plants and insects before the fall. Stephen and I were discussing the issue yesterday and he told me to read up on this blog article and to my surprise Biblical Thought is discussing the very issue.
The main point of my post is to point out the relevancy of this doctrine. The arguments given on the other side are sad to say just as Morey stated in his lecture, influenced by Dante, Milton, and medieval artists. It’s almost as if they assume that evil and death pre-fall could not have existed without ever really having good and sufficient Biblical warrant. When backing up and looking at the issue with “eagle vision” it is clear that a lot of speculation is going on. Verses such as the “lion will lay down with the lamb” and the “creation groans” are thrown out as definitive answers to refute prelapsarian evil as if they were iron clad passages of full mention like Romans 9 on election. I know that Dr. Morey has encountered these and many other arguments like them and I would be interested in his response to them. Dr. Morey, if you can indulge us and discuss the arguments that you have heard over the years I think it might help us all in this discussion. Thank you.
Feb 12th, 2008
agogley
Is it cheaper to audit a class? I never really understood the point.
Feb 12th, 2008
travis
Its been a good learning experience this far and I hope I can continue I just dont know when I will be able to. i leave for Afghanistan in a day or so and dont know when I will have access to a computer probuly the following week, but keep pressing through and thinking through this blog i will hop in and read them all when im able Im intrested to see where we go next.
thanks for the study on romans I got the first one dont know if ill get the rest but i am reading through romans and a couple other books interpreting the bible and studies on the atonment.
After thinking about what you all said here about thinking through things I found that when reading romans I sart asking questions and all sorts of doctrins pop up and questions to be answered, so again press on, I am still wanting to write the answers. to these questions.
dont let the fact that this blog is half way down the main page detour you from continuing it, I know that it easy to say out of sight out of mind, maybe the guys would bring it back to the top when we start a new section.
Love you guys
Feb 20th, 2008
agogley
it’s hard to keep up with so many things. We have the study on Romans now plus I have my own studies at Church I have to keep up with!
Feb 20th, 2008
Drew Kerr
I started reading the C.S. Lewis book. I kept getting lost in the intro/chapter 1, but liked some content in Chapter 2 called Divine Omnipotence.
The problem of pain in its simplest form is said to be, “If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy, Therefore, God lacks either goodness, or power, or both.” (page 16)
I think that the strongest point of the chapter is when the Lewis points out that God’s omnipotence means “power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power.” Lewis continues by saying, “It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.” (page 18 in my version)
Page 23 caught me again when Lewis talks about how fixed laws of nature mean that “not all states of matter will be equally agreeable to the wishes of a given soul…If fire comforts that body at a certain distance, it will destroy it when the distance is reduced.” Therefore, the “evil of pain depends on degree, and pains below a certain intensity are not feared or resented at all.” Additionally, fixed laws of nature cannot be equally agreeable to every person and the example is given of a man walking downhill, which would be less strenuous; then the man walking uphill experiences a more strenuous walk due to the law of gravity (page 23).
Page 24 and 25 ends by saying that if God manipulated the laws of nature to exclude any pain or sufering, then the end result is excluding life itself. He used many examples to show that there are intrinsic necessities of a world.
Lewis talks about (page 26) how God’s nature of perfect goodness and perfect wisdom doesn’t debate about the means most suited to acheive the end to be obtained.
So…Dr. Morey asked us to discuss pain, evil and suffering before the Fall. Chapter 2 would say that pain, evil and suffering in the world is intrinsically necessary to be able to live in an environment surrounded by other plants, animals and people. A world where the laws of nature are in a constant state of flux to avoid pain, evil and suffering would not allow anyone to function. A world without fixed laws of nature would be nonsense and is even self-contradictory when applied to God.
I need help on this, don’t leave a brother hangin’!!!!
Feb 25th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Drew, thanks for the reminder. I’m going to make time to get through Lewis’ little book so that I can join this discussion. I’ll catch up with you this week.
Feb 25th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
I have a topic to be raised. The natural theologians convey that “knowledge.” is possible for the reprobate via Romans 1. Though 1st Corinthians 2:14-15 says it is only applicable to the spiritually minded. They ploy this as an apparent contradiction and explain that natural theology is the only way to rectify Romans & 1st Corinthians regarding the issue of knowledge via evil beings.
Question.
-Does the term have the same concept in both cases?
-How can we prove immediate vs. mediate via the Scriptures?
I posed this question to James White at a conference with some Sproul associates. His answer was evasive to say the least.
Cauvin
Mar 9th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
One last question:
If it deems that sin is present in the mind before it is acted upon (e.g. lusting for another woman as described in the gospel). And since Eve lusted for the fruit in the Garden of Eden and than took a bite (action flows from and away from its base). Didn’t the sin occur before she ever sunk her teeth into it?
Adam as well. Though his reasoning may have been for the love of his wife. The very thought of the act was sin was it not?
Question:
Hypothetically speaking, If Eve (and Adam) did not bite the apple but rather entertained the thought of the bite, would that have had the same consequences as the actual bite?
Mar 9th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Dear Jean Cauvin,
I am busy writing a book on Natural Theology (NT) and Natural Law (NL) and have not looked at the blogs in a while. I will give you a brief answer to your questions.
1. In Rom1-3, Paul argues that all men have sinned and are right now falling short of the glory of God.
2. He divides sinners into two classes:
a. The Gentiles who do not have the Bible (Special Revelation).
b. The Jews who had the Bible (SR).
3. He concludes that both groups are “without excuse” and will perish in their sins.
4. But how are the Gentiles without excuse? He argues that General Revelation (GP) is going on twenty-four hours of the day, seven days a week, throughout the entire universe, to all creatures anywhere in Creation. God Himself is the One who is revealing His power and glory through His works.
5. BUT, Paul argues, the light of GR is rejected and suppressed by gentile sinners and they worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. They worshipped insects, animals, and then man.
6. NT and NL are activities of a few white Western theologians in a Christian culture. It is a categorical fallacy to equate GR with NT or NL.
7. Romans 1-3 say that the light is shining and the music is playing but sinners have shut their eyes and put their fingers into their ears and announced they see no light and hear no music. They are without excuse because God did His part through GR and SR. But, sinners reject BOTH.
I hope this helps.
Dr. Morey
Mar 17th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Thank you. Though I was trying to find a sniper refutation of the two types of knowledge as conveyed in Romans 1 and Ist Cor 2:14-15.
Or course context is crucial (analogia fide). That knowledge is surpressed I don’t think is argued by the N.T. The argument is related to the noetic effect of “”"reason”"” (or Reason).
So I’ve heard 3 arguments from the N.T. on this point
1) One would have to know something before that something is surpressed
2) Some knowledge is surpressed (e.g. Trinity, Justification by Faith), but not all knowledge is surpressed (e.g. wearing clothing, our imperfections
3) The Imago Dei, though distorted, is not destroyed. The elements of non-destruction still have knowledge, the destroyed elements are surpressed.
So It would be nice to completely demolish this non-sense via Rom 1, and I Cor 2:14-15. When I find time I will have to try to do this by using their own philosophical absurdities against them.
And finally, the conotative definition of knowledge among these N.T. is based in the probable and usually rarely in the absolute. That’s because they define Reason as
1) Universal
2) Self-Evident
3) Intuitive.
There may be more but the very definition of knowledge as we approach the discussion is equivicated, and that is probably what I need to refute first.
Thanks for your help,
Jean Cauvin
Apr 11th, 2008
Dr. Morey
An exercise in logic”
“One would have to know something before that something is suppressed.”
1. Like James (ch. 1), Paul believes that just as all good comes from God, all evil comes from man.
2. The damnation of the heathen to eternal hell is an evil.
3. Therefore the origin and fault of that evil must come from man, not from God.
4. God is giving GR all the time everywhere to all creatures on all planets.
5. The ignorance of pagan sinners is due to this revelation not getting through to the mind of man.
6. The chain of knowledge starts out good with GR, but then breaks down when it enters man.
7. What is in man that short-circuits GR? Man has a moral bias due to his sin and guilt that screens out GR from popping into his mind (john 3:17f). Thus his depravity stops the GR from reaching consciousness.
8. Man’s mind is blind and deaf. The light and music are playing but he cannot see or hear it.
Apr 12th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
“3. Therefore the origin and fault of that evil must come from man, not from God.”
I think i know what you’re saying. Though if the word “origin” is a synonym for “cause,” then God causes evil to BE (ontologically speaking (Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6), So if God causes evil, and man has evil, is then man the agent of the evil God caused? It would seem so. Origin seems ambiguous at this point though it is technically right depending on definition.
“5. The ignorance of pagan sinners is due to this revelation not getting through to the mind of man.”
THen how would we respond to General Revelation. Some general implications get to the reprobate this way. What aspects of General Revelation are different from Natural Theology? Some theologians (like Sproul) sometimes use these two terms interchangable. I have heard Sproul say that General Revelation is not surpressed, so not all of natural theology is surpressed either. Only certain aspects of it (e.g. Trinity).
“6. the chain of knowledge starts out good with GR, but then breaks down when it enters man.”
This is at conception when it enters man, right? Trivial point I suppose.
Your point on #7 is EXCELLENT. This is where your argument really hits home.
This is most fruitful.
God Bless,
Jean Cauvin
Apr 14th, 2008
Reply to “GOD, EVIL, AND YOU: PART TWO”