The end of evil (Very non-exhaustive)

123dentist.com

MPhil 2003

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University 

Statement thirty-six: This statement stated: Eventually evil will cease to exist in any form. In light of the position I take with the previous statement (previous article), I thus would disagree with this one. I believe that Biblically evil is described as ultimately being imprisoned and set apart from the rest of creation, rather than being annihilated. However, in the Anglican denomination, 44% agreed with the statement, 34% were not certain, and 22% disagreed. With Baptists, 52% agreed, while 18% were not certain, and 30% disagreed.
---

Evil is ended via another new creation or via a new re-creation?

From his commentary, Pastor Jon Courson reasons in regards to Revelation 20: 6 (b): 'The first death is physical. The second death is eternal. Yes, we will die physically unless the Lord raptures us first. But the second death is for those who are damned eternally.' (1783).

Pastor Courson disagrees with the view that the present heaven and earth 'will simply be refurbished.' (1788). He states that from Isaiah 65: 17, the word translated 'create' in Hebrew, which is 'bara' is the same word used in Genesis 1: 1 which means to create from nothing. (1788).

As much as I greatly appreciate Pastor Courson's online sermons and his commentary (that I was sold by his ministry for a good deal), I doubt his second creation from nothing, theology, based on theology and linguistic scholarship.

A recent New Testament example:

Monday, October 21, 2019 2 Peter 3: 10 (Non-exhaustive)

The Hebrew from some academic sources I have found:

Bible Hub Isaiah 65:17

I create בֹורֵ֛א (vo·v·re) 1254a: to shape, create a prim. root

Bible Hub Isaiah 65: 17

Strong's Concordance bara: to shape, create Transliteration: bara Definition: to shape, create

NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin a prim. root Definition to shape, create NASB Translation brings about (1), clear (2), create (6), created (32), creates (1), creating (3), Creator (4), cut them down (1), make (2), produced (1).

My review is very non-exhaustive, but I do see the concept from the Hebrew of  Isaiah to 'create' but not necessarily 'create from nothing'. Looking at my own Strong's text with again 1254 from the Hebrew, 'bara' is defined as choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make. (28).

Is create from nothing, ex nihilo (out of nothing from the Latin), actually within the original Hebrew text in Isaiah? Very non-exhaustively, this would be a biblical and theological debate, at best, it appears.

According to my own hardcover Strong's entry, indeed Genesis 1: 1 is also documented as the using the same word from 1254, but this does not mean that word 'bara' is used in context, and defined exactly the same way, every time it is used in the Hebrew Bible. I do reason that Genesis 1:1 is discussing creation out of nothing, but this is not necessarily the case with the recapitulation of the universe and earth in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, based on the scholarship I have read.

Theologically, God can create in Genesis 1:1 and then create again in Isaiah 65: 17 and Revelation 21-22, but in context, the second creation is recapitulation. Theologically, the first creation was by definition ex nihilo. Theologically, the second creation, discussing a creation that already exists, does not requires this. It is biblically a reasonable possibility, granted, but I do not find the theology and linguistics as convincing.

I do not see God giving up on his initial creation. It is rather a fix.

Isaiah scholar David F. Payne writes in regard to 65: 17-25:

'It is doubtful if v.17 envisages the destruction of this universe; more probably the prophet is promising its transformation, in an era when all former troubles shall be forgotten.' (762).

There is a degree of literalness with the language from Isaiah, here. We in the Church (and Hebrew Bible believers) will not plain literally have forgotten all evil, but we shall no longer live in it.

The creation and re-creation of the universe and earth is likely similar to how humanity was created completely new in Genesis, but is recreated and recapitulated in the future according to 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 21-22.

Dr. Russell Norman Murray II, will not be created, rather Dr. Russell Norman Murray I, will be restored and created new, in a sense.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) Isaiah, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

Too presumptuous

London, Unsplash

MPhil 2003

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University 

Statement thirty-five: Statement thirty-five stated: Ultimately evil will be confined to an everlasting hell. I think this is the best position to take from a Biblical perspective, as it appears in Revelation 20:14, that death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Some argue that this is describing annihilationism, however, verse 10 describes this as a place of everlasting torment for the devil, beast, and false prophet.

It would be too presumptuous, in my view, to assume that human beings thrown into this lake would simply be annihilated. With this statement there is a substantial difference in opinion between the two groups. With Anglicans, 54% agreed, 24% were not certain, and 22% disagreed. With Baptists, 86% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 8% disagreed.

Related

I see that there is some significant debate in the comments from a related article of mine from over ten years ago. I still stand by my comments against annihilation with the use of Erickson.

July 1 2009

Friendly guest comments from 2009

I don’t think this necessarily follows from Erickson’s argument even if his statements are true (and I tend to agree with him). Christ’s atonement is effectual only for those who are called, for those who’ve been regenerated to life by the Spirit. To say that Christ has atoned for the sin of all humanity is simply to say that His atoning work is sufficient for every human being, not that it is effectual for every human being. Therefore, just because some human beings’ sins are never atoned for does not argue against annihilationism. 

My reply from 2009

Quote

Therefore, just because some human beings’ sins are never atoned for does not argue against annihilationism. 

I do not think this proves your point. If atonement is not applied to a person and is not effectual this means a person is still guilty of sin. How is this paid for and covered without atonement? It is not. Remember, Erickson pointed out that Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement.

December 21 2019

Speculation comes to mind that I have made online and offline, over the years.

Annihilation might be theologically just, if the atonement of Jesus Christ, as infinite God and perfect human being, universally covered all human sin. But, if the bible taught universal atonement of all human sin and post-mortem annihilation; hades (post-mortem as spirit) and the lake of fire (post-mortem as resurrected) would seem unneeded.

But what about eventual annihilation?

A finite amount of time (existence if one prefers) in either reality, with literal flames, or more likely actual realities presented with metaphor, would not cover finite and continued, post-mortem, human sin against an infinite God.

The one that offered accepted atonement was the infinite God himself, as incarnate, perfect man (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews as examples).

Luke 16 from New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Revelation 20 from the New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

(The second resurrection which is for unbelievers)

and

14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

But, to be very clear, my noted theology of universal atonement/limited election is NOT in my mind, biblical and biblical theology. It is not my position and has never been my position. It is simply theological speculation, that I have considered as an academic. How annihilation might biblically work in light of the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ as some in scholarship hold to it as a position. I hold to a Reformed, biblical position.

Related 

February 26 2019

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Limited Free Will III

xmas-2928142_960_720

From 2003

The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University 

MPhil 2003 

Statement thirty-four: This statement stated: Human beings will not seek God, unless God calls them to himself. I believe if one thinks human beings have a sinful nature, then that nature makes it impossible for individuals to choose God autonomously.

God, through his Spirit, must first reach out to the individual making a belief and trust in God possible. My point here is that because of human sinful nature, which leads to sinful choices against God, humanity is unable to save itself from the problem of evil.

Humanly speaking, nations and many special interest groups desire to rid the world of evil, and I do not doubt that their motives are sincere, and at times some evil is prevented. However, I believe that the human position is one of dependency on God for deliverance and eventual restoration from personal sin, fallen creation and the problem of evil. With this point, 60% of Anglicans agreed, with 28% being not certain, and 12% disagreeing. With the Baptists, 76% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 16% disagreed.

December 19 2019

Based on my formal  academic work and website work, I firmly hold to a compatibilist (soft determinism) position. Some definitions...

Incompatibilism, Compatibilism (Soft Determinism), Hard Determinism

Significant free will (human in this context) would be viewed an incompatible with any form of determinism. Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism or libertarian free will, in regard to human free will, believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324).

In other words, no external force must cause a legitimate and truly free act of the human will. Within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God or an another external force (non-deistic view) would have willed and determined it, before being simultaneously willed to a given person. Mawson (1999: 324). Pre-determined before committed by the human being.

The external force could hypothetically be a first cause within non-theistic theory. The Biblical concept theologically being that God is infinite and is therefore limitless; God is eternal and therefore has always existed (Genesis 1). This concept is connected to philosophical views of first cause and primary cause..

David M. Ciocchi describes the incompatibilist idea as being God can determine that an agent commit action x, but he cannot determine that an agent commit action x freely. Ciocchi (2002: 46). The theory is that significantly free human will and actions cannot be caused by an external force. This would include a first cause. This would include God.

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will approaches that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64). There can be no antecedent (there can be no prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64).

Feinberg importantly writes that just as the incompatibilist does not claim that all actions are significantly free, the compatibilist also does not attach significant freedom to all acts. Feinberg (2001: 637). Feinberg then admits that it is difficult for compatibilists to determine intellectually if certain acts were done by an individual with significant freedom, or with the use of some type of compulsion. Feinberg (2001: 637).

In my view, significant human moral accountability requires significant freedom to embrace one's own nature, desires, thoughts acts and actions, without force or coercion by an outside agent.

Feinberg then states that this intellectual difficulty does not disprove compatibilism. I agree that it does not disprove compatibilism, but the fact that both compatibilists and incompatibilists admit that some actions are not significantly free would make the self-deterministic notions unlikely. If some actions are determined and caused by God then a system that generally adopts a strong view of God’s sovereignty and limited significant human freedom is preferable. This as opposed to libertarian free will. My semi-original term is limited free will, within compatibilism.

Within a Reformed theology and philosophical compatibilism, God as primary cause, regenerates (Titus 3) and in a sense, makes 'born again' (John 3) the chosen in Jesus Christ (Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1). God the Son's atoning and resurrection work is applied to believers through divinely given grace through faith (Ephesians 2). Not by human works, but for good works, believing humanity, embraces the gospel, being saved by grace alone, through faith alone. (Ephesians 2).

Those outside of the gospel, with limited free will, embrace corrupted human nature, sinful nature and a rejection of the triune God and the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, at the same time, rejecting the everlasting life within the Kingdom of God.

These results remain post-mortem (Revelation 20-22).

CIOCCHI, DAVID M. (2002) ‘The Religious Adequacy of Free-Will Theism’, in Religious Studies, Volume 38, pp. 45-61. Cambridge.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Problems of suffering 2: Free will, simplified version: August 5 2019:

Limited Free Will: February 23 2017

As exciting as watching a chess match (PhD Edit): June 25 2016

Limited Free Will (Brief): June 29 2015

Social conditioning plays a major part in the development of human evil

Pexels:Oleg Magni  

From 2003

The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University 

MPhil 2003

Statement thirty-three: The thirty-third statement stated: Social conditioning plays a major part in the development of human evil. 

I think that social conditioning with laws, and social rules can help somewhat to prohibit sinful human nature from exploring and developing evil in greater measure. The fact that we as human beings require laws to live by, shows that our sinful nature needs to be kept in check in order to prevent greater amounts of evil from taking place. With this statement, 62% of Anglicans agreed, with 20% not certain, and 18% disagreeing. In the Baptist group, 52% of responders agreed, while 20% were not certain, and 28% disagreed.

December 16 2019

Seems to me, a New Testament gospel mandate is to proclaim the gospel and make disciples (Matthew 28). Political engagement, although not biblically prohibited, is always secondary to a gospel-focused witness and action. This whether on the political, left, centre or right. This whether liberal, conservative, libertarian or other. A Christian worldview should submit political beliefs to the gospel. Not the vice-versa...

Unsplash Wesley Tingey Rockefller Plaza

From 2010

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Western Christians need to examine the side they are on in many of the world’s social struggles, particularly in regard to the third world. Brown (1984: 160-161). Anderson (2001: 181). In my mind there is a danger that Christianity, whether conservative or liberal, becomes overly influenced by cultures where it exists. Christian thought must stay true to Biblical and theological principles at the expense of being led astray by societal movements that later in history may be deemed to have been corrupt.

Any historical corruption of the Christian Church is, in the end, a poor witness of Christ and the gospel and weakens the credibility of Christian ministry in the minds of many critics. Anderson reasons the Church needs to repent for wrong doing in its existence. Anderson (2001: 180-181). 

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.