Spiritual Warfare

[Tim Bourland]

I attended a pastoral installation service for a good friend of mine yesterday. The DS spoke about the "spiritual warfare" in which the church is engaged. That local church is on the brink of either closing or totally reinventing itself to survive. As you can imagine, some are ready for the challenge and others are ready to cash it in. Which got me to thinking and wondering....

Is "spiritual warfare" always good vs. evil...God vs. Satan? Or can it also be "interchurch?"

I'm not talking about the normal conflict of ideas, but a deeper underlying clash of "forces."

[Todd Erickson]

interchurch, or intrachurch?

[Tim Bourland]

interchurch, or intrachurch?

Yeah, sorry. "Within the same local congregation."

[Dale Cozby]

In church division it is possible to have:

1: One side being carnal and the other side being persistent in holding to what is right.
2. Both sides being carnal and both sides can see it, but usually only in the other side.

This is why there is a process for conflict resolution in the Manual: To determine what is right and what needs to be done to fix the problem.
Sometimes a spiritual cancer has to be cut out. Other times a healing of a wound can be done without surgery.
Both result in pain and often loss before a healing can begin. Hopefully the patient doesn't die in the process. Very sad.

"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."

[Jim Frake]

Is "spiritual warfare" always good vs. evil...God vs. Satan? Or can it also be "interchurch?"

I'm not talking about the normal conflict of ideas, but a deeper underlying clash of "forces."

If we take a trip together, we may differ on the best way to get there but at least we agree on the destination.

But take this example. Let's say I have an acquaintance who wants to go to another destination other than where we agree. In other words, he has a "hidden" agenda. If he then purposefully deceives me to get to his desired destination, then this is very different than obstacles such as traffic, or going through the mountains vs. around. Be careful in judgment. He may be on the side of "Good" as I believe the end "justifies" the means. He could be trying to keep me from danger of my own foolishness.

I was at a leadership conference and the host asked "How do you know if you're a good leader?" He answered, "Look behind you and see who's following." I then raised my hand and said, "Don't you mean popular (or notorious) leader vs. Good leader?" He said, "What do you mean?" I said, "If a leader is walking a group over a cliff, that wouldn't be good." Then he said, "Well yeah I guess that's right."

This is where those that can "discern" need consulting before proceeding. Unfortunately those that can discern are not always "popular".

Blessings.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I attended a pastoral installation service for a good friend of mine yesterday. The DS spoke about the "spiritual warfare" in which the church is engaged. That local church is on the brink of either closing or totally reinventing itself to survive. As you can imagine, some are ready for the challenge and others are ready to cash it in. Which got me to thinking and wondering....

Is "spiritual warfare" always good vs. evil...God vs. Satan? Or can it also be "interchurch?"

I'm not talking about the normal conflict of ideas, but a deeper underlying clash of "forces."

In my experience, the way "spiritual warfare" is used in pop American religious culture it often refers to some kind of human failure looking for a scapegoat. In our Christian religious mythology, Satan and Devil are far too often ways to talk about our own sin, inadequacy, or failure to deal with the realities of life.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Shea Zellweger]

. He may be on the side of "Good" as I believe the end "justifies" the means.

And here we will never agree. How you do something is just as important as the results you earn, if not more so. The Scriptures have more than a few examples of people who got good results doing things the wrong way, and they were not rewarded for doing so- Moses bringing water from the rock, for example...

[Jim Frake]

And here we will never agree. How you do something is just as important as the results you earn, if not more so. The Scriptures have more than a few examples of people who got good results doing things the wrong way, and they were not rewarded for doing so- Moses bringing water from the rock, for example...

Yet Moses at his birth floated into the hands of Pharaoh's daughter at Pharaoh's deception for God's purpose. Is this a biblical counter example to what you are saying or not?

I don't understand your example Shea.

E D I T E D:
I agree how you do something is important, but I don't believe it trumps the destination. If I had to pick between the means and the end, I'd pick the end. I have my heart set on heaven. So in the trip example, if you want to go another way than me so be it. As long as we get there I'm not going to argue the means.

[Shea Zellweger]

Yet Moses at his birth floated into the hands of Pharaoh's daughter at Pharaoh's deception for God's purpose. Is this a biblical counter example to what you are saying or not?

I don't understand your example Shea.

E D I T E D:
I agree how you do something is important, but I don't believe it trumps the destination. If I had to pick between the means and the end, I'd pick the end. I have my heart set on heaven. So in the trip example, if you want to go another way than me so be it. As long as we get there I'm not going to argue the means.

I don't believe it's a counter example. Joseph said to his brothers "what you intended for evil, God intended for Good." There are plenty of examples where people did evil things, and God brought good from them. That does not mean the evil things they did were acceptable. I see Christ as our destination, not Heaven, but regardless of that semantical difference, how we reach Christ is entirely dependent on how we live now. There is no evil way to find communion with Christ, so that's a moot point. There are many evil ways to achieve other positive results, and those evil ways are not acceptable, regardless of the results they render.

[David Graham]

And even our good intentions and action may have "evil" consequences. e.g. Christian members of a jury may convict an innocent person based upon the evidence that is presented to them which later maight be found to be flawed.

In the end our "humanness" as well as our "sin" makes us prone to error. Thus our walk towards "holiness" is just as much a journey in humility and in saying "we're sorry as it is in our determination to "do the right thing".

So, in going back to the original question: Is spiritual warfare about the struggle between "good" and "evil" (or between God and the devil), I would also add a third possibility that it is also a struggle between our human frailty and our spiritual humility. Of course some will say that our human frailty is in itself evil, but that opens up more problems than it solves.

Blessings,
Dave

[Todd Erickson]

I attended a pastoral installation service for a good friend of mine yesterday. The DS spoke about the "spiritual warfare" in which the church is engaged. That local church is on the brink of either closing or totally reinventing itself to survive. As you can imagine, some are ready for the challenge and others are ready to cash it in. Which got me to thinking and wondering....

Is "spiritual warfare" always good vs. evil...God vs. Satan? Or can it also be "interchurch?"

I'm not talking about the normal conflict of ideas, but a deeper underlying clash of "forces."

I have to wonder if he isn't talking about the Emerging Church here.

[Bob Hunter]

In my experience, the way "spiritual warfare" is used in pop American religious culture it often refers to some kind of human failure looking for a scapegoat. In our Christian religious mythology, Satan and Devil are far too often ways to talk about our own sin, inadequacy, or failure to deal with the realities of life.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

I totally agree with this statement. In fact, the manual sets forth some biblically based principles that a local Church may act on to minimize conflict (or what some might call warfare). A lot of the so called "warfare" is lack of self differentiation and Christlikeness. It basically boils down to people not communicating in Christian love and dealing with issues face-to-face. Can my human failures and weaknesses become an occasion for the evil one? Sure! But I can't turn to the devil as my scapegoat every time I'm derelict in my Christian duty. The Manual states:

121.1. Pastors and congregations shall seek a clear understanding
of each others’ expectations and sincerely follow
biblical principles to resolve differences in a spirit of reconciliation
within the church. Biblical principles for resolving
differences in Matthew 18:15-20 and Galatians 6:1-5 include:
1. Seek to resolve differences by discussing them face-toface.
2. If face-to-face discussion fails to bring resolution, seek
the assistance of one or two others in resolving the differences.
3. Bring the differences to the church board only after
face-to-face discussion and small-group efforts fail.
4. Christians are obligated to work at resolving differences
in a spirit of love, acceptance, and forgiveness.

Imagine the "spiritual warfare" we could avoid if we applied these principles...

[Jim Frake]

I don't believe it's a counter example. Joseph said to his brothers "what you intended for evil, God intended for Good." There are plenty of examples where people did evil things, and God brought good from them. That does not mean the evil things they did were acceptable. I see Christ as our destination, not Heaven, but regardless of that semantical difference, how we reach Christ is entirely dependent on how we live now. There is no evil way to find communion with Christ, so that's a moot point. There are many evil ways to achieve other positive results, and those evil ways are not acceptable, regardless of the results they render.

Ok I do agree with everything you said except I was unclear about the last line. What did you mean by "evil ways to achieve other positive results" as I wouldn't consider positive results possible from the sinners perspective.

Note: It may seem like my agreement is contrary to my post. You are correct. I concede on this one. I guess my assumption was not thought out carefully. I was not saying that I "justify" true evil in any case. What I had considered is that if I get to Jesus, then that is what's important. I didn't think of "means" compared to what God would consider "Good"; instead I broke my own rule and framed my post around "man's" definition. So that's really makes for an ironic situation considering the "other" topic in which I've been so persistant. Please forgive me.

[Todd Erickson]

There are many evil ways to achieve other positive results, and those evil ways are not acceptable, regardless of the results they render.


Ok I do agree with everything you said except I was unclear about the last line. What did you mean by "evil ways to achieve other positive results" as I wouldn't consider positive results possible from the sinners perspective.

There's a bully picking on kids in the neighborhood.

I could:

Kill the bully.
Beat the bully senseless anytime I see him out.
Blackmail the bully.
Extort the bully.
Threaten the bully's parents.
Bribe the Bully.

All of these things might resolve the issue of him beating up kids, but none of them are particularly Christlike. Even teaching the kids how to beat him up themselves is not actually going to resolve the brokenness within him.

[Jim Frake]

There's a bully picking on kids in the neighborhood.

I could:

Kill the bully.
Beat the bully senseless anytime I see him out.
Blackmail the bully.
Extort the bully.
Threaten the bully's parents.
Bribe the Bully.

All of these things might resolve the issue of him beating up kids, but none of them are particularly Christlike. Even teaching the kids how to beat him up themselves is not actually going to resolve the brokenness within him.

But none of the situations are positive relative to the "bully" nor relative to "you". I understand how in the larger perspective a positive result appears for the children. But I was wondering about Shea's statement "The Scriptures have more than a few examples of people who got good results doing things the wrong way." How do you get "good" from "wrong"?

I'm confused and I've read Romans 8:28 ...

[Shea Zellweger]

But none of the situations are positive relative to the "bully" nor relative to "you". I understand how in the larger perspective a positive result appears for the children. But I was wondering about Shea's statement "The Scriptures have more than a few examples of people who got good results doing things the wrong way." How do you get "good" from "wrong"?

I'm confused and I've read Romans 8:28 ...

Todd's example is an excellent one. The positive result would be that the bullying stops, but clearly the means are negative, and the results may even be more negative than positive.

A few examples of gaining good things through bad methods from Scripture:
Jacob tricking Esau into giving up his birthright.
Jacob tricking Isaac into giving his blessing.
A man protecting himself and his guest by offering up their concubines to be raped (and eventually killed).
Moses bringing water from the rock by striking it when he was told to speak to it.
Bathsheba becoming an ancestor of Christ through the murder of her husband.

The list continues, but these are just cherry-picked from my mind without opening the Scriptures. None of these people acted in an honorable or "good" way, and yet each one gained something positive from their negative actions.

[Billy Cox]

I attended a pastoral installation service for a good friend of mine yesterday. The DS spoke about the "spiritual warfare" in which the church is engaged. That local church is on the brink of either closing or totally reinventing itself to survive. As you can imagine, some are ready for the challenge and others are ready to cash it in. Which got me to thinking and wondering....

Is "spiritual warfare" always good vs. evil...God vs. Satan? Or can it also be "interchurch?"

I'm not talking about the normal conflict of ideas, but a deeper underlying clash of "forces."

In this case, 'spiritual warfare' sounds like shorthand for "I'm on God's side, and the people who disagree with me have sided with the devil."

Incidentally, the way to shut down the topic of spiritual warfare is to use it interchangeably with the term 'Christian jihad', which is virtually the same concept.

[David Pettigrew]

In this case, 'spiritual warfare' sounds like shorthand for "I'm on God's side, and the people who disagree with me have sided with the devil."

Incidentally, the way to shut down the topic of spiritual warfare is to use it interchangeably with the term 'Christian jihad', which is virtually the same concept.

I was in charge of a youth camp a few years back, and I felt the camp speaker's techniques in an evening service were emotionally manipulative at best and spiritually abusive at worst. After struggling all night, I had a very polite but frank conversation with the speaker the next morning, and thought we had a good meeting of the minds. That night, he began his sermon with the phrase "Well, the devil's been working all day."

I turned to my wife and whispered "I guess I'm the devil."

[Todd Erickson]

A weapon is whatever will change the enemy's minds. And sometime, the enemy is your people, who just don't know better yet.

[Hans Deventer]

I turned to my wife and whispered "I guess I'm the devil."

You're in good company. They accused Jesus of being the head of the demons too.

[Kenneth Searcy]

I attended a pastoral installation service for a good friend of mine yesterday. The DS spoke about the "spiritual warfare" in which the church is engaged. That local church is on the brink of either closing or totally reinventing itself to survive. As you can imagine, some are ready for the challenge and others are ready to cash it in. Which got me to thinking and wondering....

Is "spiritual warfare" always good vs. evil...God vs. Satan? Or can it also be "interchurch?"

I'm not talking about the normal conflict of ideas, but a deeper underlying clash of "forces."

I usually think of "spiritual warfare" as what goes on within us personally. Like us waring with our fears, thoughts, emotions, desires. However if we act on them it could definitly cause spiritual warfare in the church.
Some in that church you speak of may fear change others may desire it and be excited about it. Which they should not fear change; they should fear God, asking him for direction.
Does this help?

[Jim Frake]

And even our good intentions and action may have "evil" consequences. e.g. Christian members of a jury may convict an innocent person based upon the evidence that is presented to them which later maight be found to be flawed.

But isn't evil in the root and should not be judged in the leaf? Just because one is sent to prison, does that make itself "evil"? I think most would assume there is no justice in sending an innocent man to prison but maybe God's got a plan we are not privy to. Just like my chess example, sacrificing a pawn for the benefit of the king could be considered "good" even for the pawn. There is "honor" in sacrifice (hint hint). Maybe there is someone in jail that needs ministering to or a dream interpretation.

My point initially is that we should be careful in judgment. If we're trying to head in the same direction than that's what's important. Be careful what you call "evil" and careful what you term "good". In the end God decides what is right and what is wrong. Our job is to be faithful servants even if we are in the presence of our enemies. We can "kill em" with kindness.

People say, "That's my two cents" but I say, "That's my nickel." There are 2 reasons for this:
1. Inflation
2. My name is Jim.

[Shea Zellweger]

But isn't evil in the root and should not be judged in the leaf? Just because one is sent to prison, does that make itself "evil"? I think most would assume there is no justice in sending an innocent man to prison but maybe God's got a plan we are not privy to. Just like my chess example, sacrificing a pawn for the benefit of the king could be considered "good" even for the pawn. There is "honor" in sacrifice (hint hint). Maybe there is someone in jail that needs ministering to or a dream interpretation.


I don't accept this view of providence/sovereignty. It skates far to close to predestination IMHO.

[Jim Frake]

I don't accept this view of providence/sovereignty. It skates far to close to predestination IMHO.

I don't believe God is absolutely soverign either but that is not the point.

Don't you believe that the sacrifice of Christ which was prophesied beforehand was legitimate? -- or do you believe that it was somehow evil? Things are not partially evil or partially good. The men that did what they did to the Lord did evil. That is separate from our Lord. What Christ did was good. Christ was protected from evil.

Therefore in this example, the man going to jail could be (on a smaller scale) considered similar to Christ going to the cross.

The burden of the cross was not evil. (<<-- quite the opposite!) The burden of going to jail has the possibility of being considered good even if innocent. Is this not what Christ was? (<<-- innocent!)

Please explain.

[Todd Erickson]

Don't you believe that the sacrifice of Christ which was prophesied beforehand was legitimate? -- or do you believe that it was somehow evil? Things are not partially evil or partially good. The men that did what they did to the Lord did evil. That is separate from our Lord. What Christ did was good. Christ was protected from evil.

Therefore in this example, the man going to jail could be (on a smaller scale) considered similar to Christ going to the cross.

The burden of the cross was not evil. (<<-- quite the opposite!) The burden of going to jail has the possibility of being considered good even if innocent. Is this not what Christ was? (<<-- innocent!)

Please explain.

I think that what Shea is referring to here is the theory that every bad thing that happens, God intended it to happen, to fulfill some other plan.

Your kid dies? This is a good thing, and God meant it to happen, and something good is going to happen.

Your wife got raped, and then killed on her way home because she was crying too hard while driving? God meant all of that to happen, and something good will happen from it.

An earthquake hit your country and 2.5 million people died, and another 10 million will die from lack of food and shelter over the next month? God meant it to happen, and is sending a personal message to the homosexuals, and by the way, something good will happen from it.

OTOH, there is a view that God has placed stewardship of the world into our hands, and much of what happens occurs precisely because we refuse to act within God's will within the earth, i.e., were we in line with God, we could more than adequately deal with earthquakes and the like. God uses bad events to His glory, but He does not cause them.

However, this does not mean that God didn't have a pretty fair idea that if Christ was sent at a specific time and said specific things, he'd be crucified.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I don't believe God is absolutely soverign either but that is not the point.

Don't you believe that the sacrifice of Christ which was prophesied beforehand was legitimate? -- or do you believe that it was somehow evil?

Things are not partially evil or partially good. The men that did what they did to the Lord did evil. That is separate from our Lord. What Christ did was good. Christ was protected from evil.

Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow this. If Jesus suffered evil at the hands of others, how is it that he was protected from evil? Certainly his own actions were not evil since John's Gospel tells us that he willingly laid down his life. Yet he suffered evil. Evil in the world is not confined to the perpetrators any more than are the consequences of sin confined to the sinner (like the drunk that goes the wrong way on an interstate and causes the deaths of 27 church youth and workers on an outing [the story ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision)]).

And to evoke predictive prophecy to legitimate Jesus' death as somehow good has already decided the question before hand. Whether Jesus' death was predicted in prophecy (looking forward rather than backward) is another topic. However, if we do not invoke some form of predestination, then the conclusion is that human beings perpetrated evil on Jesus, which God then used for good (Gen 50:20 has already been noted). (The Death of Jesus: Historically Contingent or Divinely Ordained? (http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdeath.html))


Therefore in this example, the man going to jail could be (on a smaller scale) considered similar to Christ going to the cross. The burden of the cross was not evil. (<<-- quite the opposite!) The burden of going to jail has the possibility of being considered good even if innocent. Is this not what Christ was? (<<-- innocent!)

The danger in this line of reasoning is that good and evil really have no meaning since we overlay those categories with a God-factor that erases any distinction. I think we have to retain the idea of good and evil, without reducing those ideas to perceptions or defining them in terms of a larger agenda. Yet, God is quite capable of working within circumstances that are not good or even evil. That is the nature of God and the nature of grace. (a slightly different topic: The Problem of Natural Evil (http://www.crivoice.org/evil.html))

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis B.

[Jim Frake]

Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow this. If Jesus suffered evil at the hands of others, how is it that he was protected from evil? Certainly his own actions were not evil since John's Gospel tells us that he willingly laid down his life. Yet he suffered evil....
One might consider this as a "necessary evil" (although I don't believe in this term). Something similar is medicine or a shot. These are not particularly pleasant but are for your good. A lamb is sacrificed. Is the one that does the sacrifice considered evil? Let's consider no predestination. Jesus was protected from evil because he was king "not of this world". Jesus accepted His position and thus allowed this to happen. Good didn't come as a result of evil. Good came because it was. Jesus said "I am".


The danger in this line of reasoning is that good and evil really have no meaning since we overlay those categories with a God-factor that erases any distinction. I think we have to retain the idea of good and evil, without reducing those ideas to perceptions ...

It is interesting that you would consider this "erases any distinction" or has "no meaning". In fact, when you begin to look deeper and attempt to consider the heart of each situation, you begin to see a more clear definition. Not only are we retaining the idea of good and evil, we are strengthening these ideas as authorized by God.

As an example, my child was instructed to always tell the truth. Well when he was 4 years old he said to my friend, "You are so fat!" And you know what? He was right. This man weighted 325 lbs. Now his perspective was that he was doing something good by listening to his dad. However, I needed to deepen his understanding of that which was more important. I needed to give him a more clear picture of how to be good. God is trying to do that for us. He wants us to understand what he means by good and evil. Not just what is convenient for us.

This is exactly what we are supposed to learn from the ultimate sacrifice. God gave His only begotten Son. This was Good.

Blessings.
justjim.

[Todd Erickson]

This is exactly what we are supposed to learn from the ultimate sacrifice. God gave His only begotten Son. This was Good.


You'll note, the verse says "For God so loved the world, that he sent his only Son, that whosoever might believe in (rely in, abide in, trust in) Him, should have everlasting life."

Not, "believe in His death" or "believe in His death and resurrection". Believe in Jesus, period.

When we attempt to take the crucifixion and say that it was not an act of evil, we actually lessen what Jesus did, and what was done to Him. When we decide that everything about Christ's passion was a necessary legal stage setting for the satisfaction of the wrath of God, we make it into a device, and rob it of all meaning.

[Hans Deventer]

You'll note, the verse says "For God so loved the world, that he sent his only Son, that whosoever might believe in (rely in, abide in, trust in) Him, should have everlasting life."

Not, "believe in His death" or "believe in His death and resurrection". Believe in Jesus, period.

When we attempt to take the crucifixion and say that it was not an act of evil, we actually lessen what Jesus did, and what was done to Him. When we decide that everything about Christ's passion was a necessary legal stage setting for the satisfaction of the wrath of God, we make it into a device, and rob it of all meaning.

Thanks is not enough. AMEN!!!

[Dennis Bratcher]

One might consider this as a "necessary evil" (although I don't believe in this term). Something similar is medicine or a shot. These are not particularly pleasant but are for your good.

I think the analogy is flawed because an important distinction is not being made. There is a great deal of difference between something being bad (hurtful, etc.) and it working out for a greater good. The simple fact is that the shot is painful. While it may be for a greater good, the fact remains that it is painful. To try to say that it is not really painful since it for something good is a way to deny the reality of the pain. The pain is real and no amount of arguing that it is good changes that fact. A child who gets a shot suffers the pain; s/he is not "protected" from the pain but experiences it. To argue that the pain is insignificant and that the child is protected from the pain because of a greater good is to assert that the pain has no meaning and serves to erase any distinction between the pain and the good.


A lamb is sacrificed. Is the one that does the sacrifice considered evil?

Well, I suspect that the lamb who suffers the pain and death would think so. Whatever greater good there might be does not erase the violent death of the lamb (speaking as one who has witnessed the slaughter of a lamb). To argue that the one doing the killing is innocent because it is for a greater good renders the violent death of no consequence since it served the greater interests of the one doing the sacrifice.

And all of that is apart from the problem with using sacrificial imagery for Jesus, which assumes a purely forensic (legal) paradigm for relationship with God. That is not the role of sacrifice in the Old Testament.


Let's consider no predestination. Jesus was protected from evil because he was king "not of this world". Jesus accepted His position and thus allowed this to happen. Good didn't come as a result of evil. Good came because it was. Jesus said "I am".

Again, to say that Jesus was "protected" from evil is to deny the reality of his debasement, suffering, torture, and violent death perpetrated, not by God, but by human beings. The good may not have been necessitated by evil, but it certainly came out of evil. That is really hard to deny both logically and theologically.


It is interesting that you would consider this "erases any distinction" or has "no meaning". In fact, when you begin to look deeper and attempt to consider the heart of each situation, you begin to see a more clear definition. Not only are we retaining the idea of good and evil, we are strengthening these ideas as authorized by God.

No, I don't think so.


As an example, my child was instructed to always tell the truth. Well when he was 4 years old he said to my friend, "You are so fat!" And you know what? He was right. This man weighted 325 lbs. Now his perspective was that he was doing something good by listening to his dad. However, I needed to deepen his understanding of that which was more important. I needed to give him a more clear picture of how to be good. God is trying to do that for us. He wants us to understand what he means by good and evil. Not just what is convenient for us.

I don't see how the illustration applies.


This is exactly what we are supposed to learn from the ultimate sacrifice. God gave His only begotten Son. This was Good.

Or perhaps we are supposed to learn about the depths of human potential for evil, so that as we see Jesus on the cross we see the consequences of our own sinfulness. We would even kill God if it served our own purposes. We need to recognize that as sinful and evil before redemption has much meaning. We cannot make God the author of Jesus' death. If we do, then human sin is only incidental or irrelevant since God is simply playing out a legal scenario in which everything is good.

But that is not the testimony of Scripture. For example,


Jn 3:19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.

Yet God can redeem the worst of human actions and bring newness out of the most complete endings that human beings can bring.


Jn 1:16 From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Tim Bourland]

I think the analogy is flawed because an important distinction is not being made. There is a great deal of difference between something being bad (hurtful, etc.) and it working out for a greater good. The simple fact is that the shot is painful. While it may be for a greater good, the fact remains that it is painful. To try to say that it is not really painful since it for something good is a way to deny the reality of the pain. The pain is real and no amount of arguing that it is good changes that fact. A child who gets a shot suffers the pain; s/he is not "protected" from the pain but experiences it. To argue that the pain is insignificant and that the child is protected from the pain because of a greater good is to assert that the pain has no meaning and serves to erase any distinction between the pain and the good.

Well, I suspect that the lamb who suffers the pain and death would think so. Whatever greater good there might be does not erase the violent death of the lamb (speaking as one who has witnessed the slaughter of a lamb). To argue that the one doing the killing is innocent because it is for a greater good renders the violent death of no consequence since it served the greater interests of the one doing the sacrifice.

And all of that is apart from the problem with using sacrificial imagery for Jesus, which assumes a purely forensic (legal) paradigm for relationship with God. That is not the role of sacrifice in the Old Testament.

Again, to say that Jesus was "protected" from evil is to deny the reality of his debasement, suffering, torture, and violent death perpetrated, not by God, but by human beings. The good may not have been necessitated by evil, but it certainly came out of evil. That is really hard to deny both logically and theologically.


Agree! Otherwise, why would Jesus "dread" the pain and humiliation to the point of "sweating great drops of blood"...? Would that be an appropriate application?

[Jim Frake]

You'll note, the verse says "For God so loved the world, that he sent his only Son, that whosoever might believe in (rely in, abide in, trust in) Him, should have everlasting life."

Not, "believe in His death" or "believe in His death and resurrection". Believe in Jesus, period.

When we attempt to take the crucifixion and say that it was not an act of evil, we actually lessen what Jesus did, and what was done to Him. When we decide that everything about Christ's passion was a necessary legal stage setting for the satisfaction of the wrath of God, we make it into a device, and rob it of all meaning.

Todd maybe I wasn't clear. I am not saying that there was no evil in the crucifixion. There was evil. But to say that good came from evil is where I draw the line. Christ said "I am". Using a bad situation for good is not the same.

Matthew 7:16
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

If you believe that good can be "spawned" from evil then you enter a very slippery slope. Then the only real distinction between good and evil is in the appearance and not the root. Thus to further the example of the shot of medicine, I might stop administering it if it is uncomfortable in any way to the child because that is somehow "evil". Since I don't want to be evil, I don't want to give the shot.

My father knows what is good for me and this I have faith.

Blessing,
justjim

E D I T E D
also in Matthew 7
...which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves"

[Dennis Bratcher]

Todd maybe I wasn't clear. I am not saying that there was no evil in the crucifixion. There was evil. But to say that good came from evil is where I draw the line. Christ said "I am". Using a bad situation for good is not the same.

Matthew 7:16
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

If you believe that good can be "spawned" from evil then you enter a very slippery slope. Then the only real distinction between good and evil is in the appearance and not the root. Thus to further the example of the shot of medicine, I might stop administering it if it is uncomfortable in any way to the child because that is somehow "evil". Since I don't want to be evil, I don't want to give the shot.

My father knows what is good for me and this I have faith.

I would not belabor this, except I think this is a crucial and vital element in our understanding of God and his work with humanity.

It is not that good is "spawned" from evil. It is that God in his grace and mercy works within the evil that humanity creates by our sin. Where else would he work with us?

And I do not understand how this is a slippery slope to eliminate evil. If you recall, I have argued exactly the opposite.

The analogy of the medicine is not a good one. It is not that God administers a cure, and that in so doing brings pain (evil) that is really a good thing (which is what I suggested eliminates the distinction between good and evil). The pain (evil) is caused by us humans through our sinfulness. And the "cure" is not some thing that God needs to do or is required (a legal conception), but rather is our response to what God has already done: loved us first.

I think you are trying to talk about what God has done in Christ, yet are extrapolating that into generalities about evil. Yet even in the crucifixion, God took what humanity had done (God did not crucify Jesus, nor was it built into some predestined plan of God), and used it redemptively (have you had a chance to read Dr. Tashjian's article that I referenced earlier? The Death of Jesus: Historically Contingent or Divinely Ordained? (http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdeath.html)). That is the nature of God's grace.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Billy Cox]

When we attempt to take the crucifixion and say that it was not an act of evil, we actually lessen what Jesus did, and what was done to Him. When we decide that everything about Christ's passion was a necessary legal stage setting for the satisfaction of the wrath of God, we make it into a device, and rob it of all meaning.

For this very reason, I still refuse to think of the Friday before Easter as 'Good'. (even in light of Brad Mercer's argument to the contrary)

[Billy Cox]

Agree! Otherwise, why would Jesus "dread" the pain and humiliation to the point of "sweating great drops of blood"...? Would that be an appropriate application?

To be fully human is to have a visceral survival instinct and a deep aversion to pain and suffering.

[John Kennedy]

I have never become aware of positive outcomes resulting from ministries marching under the 'spiritual warfare' banner. Most of the time it has simply been a means of making sure everyone understands who is on the Lord's side and who is not ( the latter being the ones who don't agree with the spiritual warrior's point of view).
In the vast majority of cases, 'spiritual warfare' is simply an 'agenda holder'.

[Dale Cozby]

There are many evil ways to achieve other positive results, and those evil ways are not acceptable, regardless of the results they render.
while in principle I agree with the idea an ontological approach to life. I believe that God did in fact do "evil" in the OT and it brought about the desired results He wanted.

A few examples:
The plagues
The destruction of the Egyptian army pursuing Israel during the exodus.
The ground opening and swallowing those that rebelled.
The snakes, the lesions, etc upon Israel in the wilderness.
The destruction of the walls of Jericho at the exact moment they were told it would happen.
Even the destruction of the Temple after all the prophecies about it going to happen. Using a more evil kingdom to bring punishment on Israel...

I could go on with evil being attributed to God. Evil = harm. So either we throw out the O.T as just the opinions and musings of some superstitious and lucky prognosticators, or God really did bring those evil things to pass for a greater good.

Relativists would argue the good justifies the means. What you express is an absolute opinion that seems contrary to what God himself has done in the past, including the death of Jesus. Why was that part of the plan? Why not just forgive us and love us without all the torture and death of Jesus?

Current example:
If what you say is true that the means are unacceptable, please explain why it is OK to enter a country illegally to better yourself or family?

[Jim Frake]

I would not belabor this, except I think this is a crucial and vital element in our understanding of God and his work with humanity.

I couldn't agree with you more.


It is not that good is "spawned" from evil. It is that God in his grace and mercy works within the evil that humanity creates by our sin. Where else would he work with us?

I believe he connects not with the evil in us but with the "seed" of goodness that is planted at "faith". Whereas the turning from evil begins a stronger presence of Him. We accept Christ, conception begins.


And I do not understand how this is a slippery slope to eliminate evil. If you recall, I have argued exactly the opposite.

I didn't say eliminate evil. I said "good spawning from evil" Please read my post clearly. It is important for the church to define evil not by what you or I or a consensus decides. It is important to make this difference. If not then we are defining good by what humanity feels and this creates opportunity to subject the Grace you discuss to the opinions of humanity.

The example is a good one. It demonstrates two distinct perspectives: one from the child and the other from a nurse (or parent). It also demonstrates how we might (incorrectly) interpret situations. The child is protected even if its screams might not indicate this. The perception as seen by the child is considered evil by the child. The limited capacity of the child prevents the understanding of the root. If the child doesn't get the medicine death could occur. This is a whole lot worse of an option. Therefore, the medicine option is a good one.

If you don't like that example how about fasting? I fasted for 7 days and can attest in the "uncomfortable" and "painful" feeling associated with it. For seven days I had nothing other than water. Was this evil that I was doing to myself or the betterment of myself? Yes I knew it was painful but what kept overshadowing my worldly pain was a Godly gain. I was able to get to a point where the pain didn't matter because God does. The pain became separate from me in a way I have never known. It was as if God said, "You are full."


I think you are trying to talk about what God has done in Christ, yet are extrapolating that into generalities about evil. Yet even in the crucifixion, God took what humanity had done (God did not crucify Jesus, nor was it built into some predestined plan of God), and used it redemptively (have you had a chance to read Dr. Tashjian's article that I referenced earlier?

I have read the introduction and will give it a full read. Although as I mentioned, I'm not sure that a Godly predetermination or a human cause of Christ's death would make any difference in understanding good and evil.

Blessing,
justjim

[Dennis Bratcher]

I believe he connects not with the evil in us but with the "seed" of goodness that is planted at "faith". Whereas the turning from evil begins a stronger presence of Him. We accept Christ, conception begins.

I did not suggest that God "connects" with evil. I said that God works within the evil that we humans create by our sin.

And I think we would be hard pressed to find this conception in Scripture.


I didn't say eliminate evil. I said "good spawning from evil" Please read my post clearly.

I did. You suggested that "good spawning from evil" was a slippery slope that erased any real distinction between good and evil so that "only real distinction between good and evil is in the appearance and not the root." If you meant something different than that you'll have to clarify it.

As it stands, I rejected that characterization by stating that "God in his grace and mercy works within the evil that humanity creates by our sin" and asking "Where else would he work with us?"


It is important for the church to define evil not by what you or I or a consensus decides.

I know of no other way to "define" theology. The Church has always done this, as has Judaism. They are not disconnected or individual decisions, but it has always been from the wisdom and interpretation of the community, often within and from disagreement, that such issues are decided. We have examples of that within both Testraments.


It is important to make this difference. If not then we are defining good by what humanity feels and this creates opportunity to subject the Grace you discuss to the opinions of humanity.

Again, I do not see how what you are saying is any different than "the opinions of humanity." Are you saying that your take on this is somehow revealed truth? If so, then there is really nothing much to discuss.


If you don't like that example how about fasting? I fasted for 7 days and can attest in the "uncomfortable" and "painful" feeling associated with it. For seven days I had nothing other than water. Was this evil that I was doing to myself or the betterment of myself? Yes I knew it was painful but what kept overshadowing my worldly pain was a Godly gain. I was able to get to a point where the pain didn't matter because God does. The pain became separate from me in a way I have never known. It was as if God said, "You are full."

Sorry, it is no better. It is apples and oranges. But then I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

My point has been and remains that we cannot erase or lessen the concept of evil or its reality as evil by overlaying it with a notion that it is really good if it serves a good purpose or if good results from it. A lot of good came from both the OKC Murrah bombing and the May 3, 1999 tornado that destroyed 8,000 homes and killed 48 people For example, after the bombing, the "Oklahoma Standard" became a benchmark of community response to disaster (I could give a lot of examples). Yet those events remain evil, one natural and one human, no matter what good came from them.


Although as I mentioned, I'm not sure that a Godly predetermination or a human cause of Christ's death would make any difference in understanding good and evil.

They are both crucial issues, because if there are not human agents for evil or if the events were predestined by God, then we have a God who creates evil so that he can make good from it. That would be a monstrous god, or at the very least would mean that evil and good cannot be distinguished by human beings. Both of those are unacceptable and far out of line with biblical and Christian witness.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Larry Parsons]

In my experience, the way "spiritual warfare" is used in pop American religious culture it often refers to some kind of human failure looking for a scapegoat. In our Christian religious mythology, Satan and Devil are far too often ways to talk about our own sin, inadequacy, or failure to deal with the realities of life.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.
I heard one preacher say people are conceited when they say that Satan has been with them all day.
Larry

[Jim Frake]

often within and from disagreement, that such issues are decided.

Well Dennis I hope you believe this thread is "good" even though it's getting uncomfortable. :smile:


And I think we would be hard pressed to find this conception in Scripture.

Being "born again" = "spiritual conception".


I did. You suggested that "good spawning from evil" was a slippery slope that erased any real distinction between good and evil so that "only real distinction between good and evil is in the appearance and not the root." If you meant something different than that you'll have to clarify it.

Yes this is what I meant. I said it is risky to suggest "good coming from evil" anymore than to suggest "evil coming from good". So you do agree that we shouldn't "lessen" or "erase" these concepts. Don't you?


I know of no other way to "define" theology. The Church has always done this, as has Judaism. They are not disconnected or individual decisions, but it has always been from the wisdom and interpretation of the community, often within and from disagreement, that such issues are decided. We have examples of that within both Testraments.

I do agree that when you attach terms such as "wisdom" to the interpretation, we get closer to the "absolute" of these concepts.


Sorry, it is no better. It is apples and oranges. But then I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

That the capacity to understand right from wrong is relative to our understanding of God which involves diminishing our own understanding. In other words, it is the removal of "self" that increases the clarity --- not the reliance on a "human" interpretation. Thus the "anointing" that occurs allows us a more "pure" understanding of which is and which is not.


My point has been and remains that we cannot erase or lessen the concept of evil or its reality as evil by overlaying it with a notion that it is really good if it serves a good purpose or if good results from it. ...... Yet those events remain evil, one natural and one human, no matter what good came from them.

How do these concepts erase or lessen evil compared to redefining what we assume it to be? How do you resolve the scripture of Matthew 7:16 in this discussion?


They are both crucial issues, because if there are not human agents for evil or if the events were predestined by God, then we have a God who creates evil so that he can make good from it. That would be a monstrous god, or at the very least would mean that evil and good cannot be distinguished by human beings. Both of those are unacceptable and far out of line with biblical and Christian witness.

If God has the world predetermined (as I do not believe it to be) then it does not necessarily follow that Good could come from Evil or vice-versa in our context. If God designed it then it would follow that it works the way he says. If the "human agents for evil" exist which seems more likely, then that still doesn't mean that good comes from evil.

John 3:19-21 (Phi) "This is the judgment: that light has entered the world, and men have preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Everybody who does wrong hates the light and keeps away from it, for fear his deeds may be exposed. But everybody who is living by the truth will come to the light to make it plain that all he has done has been done through God."

Blessings!
justjim

Oh and I'll leave my number if you wish to call. Talking on the phone is more expeditious. It's 903-331-0133. I encourage anyone to call if you can shed "light" on these matters. Thanks.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Well Dennis I hope you believe this thread is "good" even though it's getting uncomfortable.

I have no discomfort with the thread. I apologize if you have.

I think I've said about everything I can say on this topic.

Blessings.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Jim Frake]

I have no discomfort with the thread. I apologize if you have. Well did you say, "I would not belabor this, except .... " in post #33? I absolutely have no discomfort, so there is no apology needed.



I think I've said about everything I can say on this topic. Well then maybe someone else can resolve Matthew 7:16 for you in regards to your article "The Problem of Natural 'Evil' " in which you state:

"And then when the good comes out of the tragedy, we can gently use Romans 8:28 to say, "Here is God at work."

At first as I read this article, I thought Dennis and I could agree on the concept of defining "Good". He points out that:

If something makes us feel bad or causes us discomfort, we assume it is "bad." Likewise, if something pleases us or brings us happiness, we assume it is good. But that is not really an adequate basis to make that judgment.

And then further:

In talking about God, we tend to project our short range, personal, and experiential definitions of good onto God and assume that God is good by our own immediate standards of what constitutes good.

I thought, "This is what I believe. So in believing this, Dennis makes this statement in post 26:

"The danger in this line of reasoning is that good and evil really have no meaning since we overlay those categories with a God-factor that erases any distinction. I think we have to retain the idea of good and evil, without reducing those ideas to perceptions or defining them in terms of a larger agenda."

So which is it? Is the definition of "good" defined by a God centered "larger agenda" or a "short range" self-centered humanity. Dennis seems to take one stance in his article and then another in this topic. And please note that these two options are not synonymous with we believe in predestination or not. There are other possibilities.

Mucho Blessin'
justjim

[Todd Erickson]

Me getting a shot isn't evil. It hurts, but it's good for me. There is no evil, intended or otherwise.

Me killing somebody is evil. There isn't a way that it isn't evil. Even if you stack the cards, and make them the worst baby raping liberal who ever existed, killing them is still an evil thing...even if it leads to better things.

When I kill, I strike down somebody made in the image of Christ...in the manner of the bible, I am striking down God himself when I kill another.

But God can use both, nonetheless.

[Ray Lepkowicz]

Jim,
A man wrongly sent to jail could be used by God for good, but I cannot believe it was good or part of God's plan. Yes, God can take the evil that happens and turn it into good, but a man wronly convicted is still evil even though good came out in the end. Joseph's brothers had evil plans but God turned their evil into good in the end.