All Evil is Sin ?

[David Lamb]

Thanks, David, but actually I was referring to his "wrong yes" in the post.
I think he needed a comma somewhere.

Apologies! (I'm glad I ended my post, "I may be wrong" ).

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Makes a lot of sense, in the first sentence. Makes a lot of hot air in the last sentence!

But it does answer one question that I have been asking for two years on the BB, on another question. If "all EVIL...IS sin", as you claim, I now have the answer to a question I've asked about repentence, repeatedly. Since so many seem to believe "repent" really means "repent of one('s) sin(s)" (Nevermind the insignificant, miniscule, unimportant, trivial little annoyance that this wording is nowhere to be found in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, ESV, DARBY, YLT, WYC, or HCSB. "But it sure 'preaches good!' Right??" ), and I have asked the question of "What sins did the LORD God repent of?", since Scripture tells us in the OT that God did or did not repent thirty times (KJV), now I know. BTW, all the following Scriptures are from the KJV, Lest one think I am "cherry-picking" the four quoted verses above, let me say that this effective wording is also found in II Sam. 24:16; I Chron. 21:15; Jer. 18:8,10; 26:3, 13, 19; Jonah 3:10 and 4:2, for a total of 13 occasions.

That would be your exegesis, would it not, Alex Quackenbush?? That God repented from sin?? It is consistent with what you posted, anyway.

So while I appreciate your offer to provide exegesis, I believe I will have to pass on your generosity.

Ed

That would NOT be my exegesis because...first of all you attempted to (I think that is what you believe you were doing) to exegete a different passage than the two mentioned in the OP:

We know that all sin is evil, bu Is all evil sin ?

What about these two verses:

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things

Ecclessiastes 12:1 - Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

So why you would attempt to tackle other passages and then ask if that was my exegesis of two different verses is something I don't quite see.

As for offer to exegete the OP passages, well you have turned them down.

But your other passages to raise interesting questions such as the use of anthropic language to describe aspect of God...but that is for another thread I am sure.

Again, all evil is sin but not all sin is evil.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

You have it backwards. All sin is not considered EVIL, wrong yes, but not always is a sin considered EVIL but all EVIL...IS sin. As for the passage Isaiah, a simple search providing a clear exegesis is at your finger tips and would answer your question quickly. But if you DON'T believe you are up to searching for an exegesis, just ask and I will provide it for you.

Alex, perhaps a "for instance" would help make your statements more understood.
Like maybe an instance in which sin is not considered evil, but is wrong nonetheless.

btw, I'm still pondering your idea that God can act outside of His foreknowledge or omniscience. I may have gotten the point you were making correct, but I'm not sure what to do with it.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Again, all evil is sin but not all sin is evil.

Explain this a little more. With illustrations, if you will.

Because I think, even in today's English, all evil is not sin.

For instance, we might say, "evil has befallen Pensacola", in reference to the tornado that touched down where they were not used to having a tornado touch down.

Is that evil sin ?

I wot not.

However, ALL sin is evil.

There is no sin that is not evil, because sin is the transgression of the law, and an offence to the holiness of God, and sin causes despair and destruction not only to the offender but to those against whom the sin has been committed.

For instance, if, even being a married man, I fall in love with and married another woman in another town, that is bigamy in human laws, and adultery in God's law.

The end result is sorrow and despair for both women, and rebellion for the children of the first marriage, and confusion and shame for the children of the second marriage, not to mention the fact that I can go to jail, which compounds matters.

All sin is evil.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Explain this a little more. With illustrations, if you will.

Great idea!

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Alex, perhaps a "for instance" would help make your statements more understood.
Like maybe an instance in which sin is not considered evil, but is wrong nonetheless.

btw, I'm still pondering your idea that God can act outside of His foreknowledge or omniscience. I may have gotten the point you were making correct, but I'm not sure what to do with it.

To phrase it "God can act outside of His foreknowledge or omniscience" intimates an image that may not appropriately reflect my point or the construct behind my earlier statements.

It is better stated God is not an agent of foreknowledge and omniscience (or any other attribute). On the other point concerning evil being sin but not all sin being evil, I will devote another post.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Explain this a little more. With illustrations, if you will.

Great idea!

Okay for you both and others.


A theological definition of evil and sin is first required if any distinction between evil (which I believe is always sin) and sin (which is not by default always necessarily evil).

Does the Bible use them interchangeably without distinction or is there a distinction? I believe there is not just a reasonable one but necessary one.

Sin (chata) means to miss the mark, it is a Hebrew word. It functions as the word and thought that represents anything short of divine righteousness, perfect righteousness, and divine holiness. It is the inclusive term that represents all sub-categories of sin (debauchery [all debauchery is sin but not all sin is debauchery], lewdness [all lewdness is sin but not all sin is lewdness...okay you get the point and see where I am heading with this], gluttony, and so on, with which Evil is a sub-category representing a certain class of sin).

The Bible reveals evil to have originated with Satan in eternity past, hence he is called “the evil one” (ponhros John 17:15). While the Scriptures indicate that Satan’s heart was filled with sin, he isn’t prescribed the adjective of evil until he embraces that sin and engages it in a policy and plan to oppose God (Ezekeil 28, Isaiah 14, see Job 38 for the use of morning star to express Angelic persons).

Evil refers to the policy, plan and actions of Satan in opposing God, His protocol, plan and work. Evil is displayed, knowingly or unknowingly by humans at many times in many ways. From the Garden the plan of God was to eat of any tree in the Garden but not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan’s plan, a plan of evil, was an attempt to capsize God’s plan. The evil was not just in the opposition to God but in the construct of the line of questioning Satan introduced. So in evil you will see reflected a philosophy or a mentality that seeks to subvert the clearly established protocol and plan of God.

Was it merely a reaction by Satan or a deliberation? One that involved the construct of a system that seeks to usurp God? And that, to me and to many theologians is where the distinction between all sin and evil, a particular class of sin, lies.

If I am impatient, I have sinned. If I am impatient and then blame God and campaign to justify my impatience, I am now engaged in a form of evil that opposes God’s plan and seeks to usurp it with my own justifications.

Now, please respect that to truly appreciate this doctrine or any weight of argument that there is a distinction between sin in general and the class of sin called evil, THIS thread nor any responses in the thread will suffice, truly. It requires extensive time and study to draw confident conclusions so in responding please avoid the temptation to point to a million areas I did not address.

I am respecting the request for the distinction and a very brief explanation. My hope is that it will be a springboard for more personal research, discovery and reasonable debate.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Alex Q:

I think I understand (now, don't fall off your chair, I do have a certain level of intelligence) what you are saying, and I am somewhat in agreement, but I do need to chew on those thoughts a little more.

I appreciate your input.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Alex Q:

I think I understand (now, don't fall off your chair, I do have a certain level of intelligence) what you are saying, and I am somewhat in agreement, but I do need to chew on those thoughts a little more.

I appreciate your input.

I look forward to your input, challenges and concurrences, as well as those of others this may provoke. Thanks.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

To phrase it "God can act outside of His foreknowledge or omniscience" intimates an image that may not appropriately reflect my point or the construct behind my earlier statements.

It is better stated God is not an agent of foreknowledge and omniscience (or any other attribute). On the other point concerning evil being sin but not all sin being evil, I will devote another post.

So how does God relate to His attributes?
Actually I'm going to post this in the thread we've already started.
Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Okay for you both and others.


A theological definition of evil and sin is first required if any distinction between evil (which I believe is always sin) and sin (which is not by default always necessarily evil).

Does the Bible use them interchangeably without distinction or is there a distinction? I believe there is not just a reasonable one but necessary one.

Sin (chata) means to miss the mark, it is a Hebrew word. It functions as the word and thought that represents anything short of divine righteousness, perfect righteousness, and divine holiness. It is the inclusive term that represents all sub-categories of sin (debauchery [all debauchery is sin but not all sin is debauchery], lewdness [all lewdness is sin but not all sin is lewdness...okay you get the point and see where I am heading with this], gluttony, and so on, with which Evil is a sub-category representing a certain class of sin).

The Bible reveals evil to have originated with Satan in eternity past, hence he is called “the evil one” (ponhros John 17:15). While the Scriptures indicate that Satan’s heart was filled with sin, he isn’t prescribed the adjective of evil until he embraces that sin and engages it in a policy and plan to oppose God (Ezekeil 28, Isaiah 14, see Job 38 for the use of morning star to express Angelic persons).

Evil refers to the policy, plan and actions of Satan in opposing God, His protocol, plan and work. Evil is displayed, knowingly or unknowingly by humans at many times in many ways. From the Garden the plan of God was to eat of any tree in the Garden but not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan’s plan, a plan of evil, was an attempt to capsize God’s plan. The evil was not just in the opposition to God but in the construct of the line of questioning Satan introduced. So in evil you will see reflected a philosophy or a mentality that seeks to subvert the clearly established protocol and plan of God.

Was it merely a reaction by Satan or a deliberation? One that involved the construct of a system that seeks to usurp God? And that, to me and to many theologians is where the distinction between all sin and evil, a particular class of sin, lies.

If I am impatient, I have sinned. If I am impatient and then blame God and campaign to justify my impatience, I am now engaged in a form of evil that opposes God’s plan and seeks to usurp it with my own justifications.

Now, please respect that to truly appreciate this doctrine or any weight of argument that there is a distinction between sin in general and the class of sin called evil, THIS thread nor any responses in the thread will suffice, truly. It requires extensive time and study to draw confident conclusions so in responding please avoid the temptation to point to a million areas I did not address.

I am respecting the request for the distinction and a very brief explanation. My hope is that it will be a springboard for more personal research, discovery and reasonable debate.

So far I haven't been able to find very much about the distinction between evil and sin.
I did find this article, but it appears to be taking the opposite point of you.
Do you mind reading through it and seeing where you may disagree?
http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/the_organized_church/evil_sin.htm

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

So far I haven't been able to find very much about the distinction between evil and sin.
I did find this article, but it appears to be taking the opposite point of you.
Do you mind reading through it and seeing where you may disagree?
http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/the_organized_church/evil_sin.htm

First I will tell you that Lorraine Day is not a healthy source for consideration regarding medical or theological issues. I encourage you to research those who have observed her and critiqued her work. But a proper response is not ad hominem so I won't stay here, just to note the controversy. Here is her web page and here you will find cultic characteristic trends in her thinking and outright contention with orthodox doctrine. Lorraine Day, M.D. When people make statements like (as Day does on her web page):

"If Christ's life on earth is a true and complete revelation of the character of God, then the vast majority of Christians are worshiping the WRONG god!

Red flags pop up immediately. Most Christians are worshiping the wrong god but she isn't. Warning Will Robinson...Danger...Danger.

So the article itself and the merits of it are what you want a comment on, fair enough.

First she begins the article with this claims about God:

God’s Word contains many passages that reveal the great truth that ALL things – the evil as well as the good – come from God, who alone can originate.

Evil comes from God? Wrong.

Secondly she attempts to exegete and exposit the infamous Is 45:7 verse:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The word here translated into evil is the Hebrew word ra‛ râ‛âh which is translated evil. Unfortunately because evil contextually has a most common definition associated with sin, its secondary and tertiary uses are by-passed with many people and automatically it is assumed a sinful meaning is being communicated.

The word is often translated (I give Day credit here) calamity or trouble and so on. And that is its proper use and proper understanding here. The context is clear, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create trouble". The verse itself is in the context of a prophecy for Israel, that God is their King, hence He is the one that determines and brings peace or trouble.

But never minding that the problem with Day is that she takes this singular passage and the English word "evil" here used not even in the context of moral or spiritual evil and decides all EVIL is to be defined as "calamity". Here is what she says:

In the language of the original Greek and Hebrew Biblical revelation, evil and sin are clearly distinguished by terms that are not in any way related to each other.

The word evil means calamity. A specific calamity may or may not be a sin, as will be illustrated below.

At least she recognizes that evil and sin are distinguished, unfortunately she concluded rather ignorantly that they "are not in any way related to each other".

Lorraine Day M.D. may indeed have a doctorate in the medical field but her exegetical skills and the techniques she uses it are horrible.

But imagine her saying sin and evil are not related in any way. Is she kidding? Unfortunately, no.

First she picks a passage where the concept of evil in the context of sin isn't even being used. Secondly she decides this verse is the comprehensive definition of evil everywhere else in the Bible. Bad...bad...bad.

This is not to say that every single sentence or thought in her article contains errors. Even the most heretical teacher (I am not saying she is or isn't a heretic I am just making a point with the extreme) says some true things.

But the thesis itself is based on extremely flawed exegesis and frankly I don't believe she demonstrates that she has practically, intellectually or theologically submitted to the teaching and correction of genuine masters of exegesis or Bible instruction.

Even basic hermeneutics that most faithful Bible studiers employ would have steered her from constructing her article as she did not to mention the faulty conclusions.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

First I will tell you that Lorraine Day is not a healthy source for consideration regarding medical or theological issues. I encourage you to research those who have observed her and critiqued her work. But a proper response is not ad hominem so I won't stay here, just to note the controversy. Here is her web page and here you will find cultic characteristic trends in her thinking and outright contention with orthodox doctrine. Lorraine Day, M.D. When people make statements like (as Day does on her web page):


Red flags pop up immediately. Most Christians are worshiping the wrong god but she isn't. Warning Will Robinson...Danger...Danger.

So the article itself and the merits of it are what you want a comment on, fair enough.

First she begins the article with this claims about God:


Evil comes from God? Wrong.

Secondly she attempts to exegete and exposit the infamous Is 45:7 verse:


The word here translated into evil is the Hebrew word ra‛ râ‛âh which is translated evil. Unfortunately because evil contextually has a most common definition associated with sin, its secondary and tertiary uses are by-passed with many people and automatically it is assumed a sinful meaning is being communicated.

The word is often translated (I give Day credit here) calamity or trouble and so on. And that is its proper use and proper understanding here. The context is clear, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create trouble". The verse itself is in the context of a prophecy for Israel, that God is their King, hence He is the one that determines and brings peace or trouble.

But never minding that the problem with Day is that she takes this singular passage and the English word "evil" here used not even in the context of moral or spiritual evil and decides all EVIL is to be defined as "calamity". Here is what she says:



At least she recognizes that evil and sin are distinguished, unfortunately she concluded rather ignorantly that they "are not in any way related to each other".

Lorraine Day M.D. may indeed have a doctorate in the medical field but her exegetical skills and the techniques she uses it are horrible.

But imagine her saying sin and evil are not related in any way. Is she kidding? Unfortunately, no.

First she picks a passage where the concept of evil in the context of sin isn't even being used. Secondly she decides this verse is the comprehensive definition of evil everywhere else in the Bible. Bad...bad...bad.

This is not to say that every single sentence or thought in her article contains errors. Even the most heretical teacher (I am not saying she is or isn't a heretic I am just making a point with the extreme) says some true things.

But the thesis itself is based on extremely flawed exegesis and frankly I don't believe she demonstrates that she has practically, intellectually or theologically submitted to the teaching and correction of genuine masters of exegesis or Bible instruction.

Even basic hermeneutics that most faithful Bible studiers employ would have steered her from constructing her article as she did not to mention the faulty conclusions.

I know absolutely nothing about her. I didn't even know if the writer was a woman since the name can be used by both sexes. I'll take your word about her though.
Your posts about sin and evil did not deal with the texts where sin is not in view, so I wasn't sure how that meaning of evil fit into your views.

It's hard to find material where the distinction between sin and evil is discussed in detail.
None of our systematic theology books cover that topic.
What theologians have you read on this topic?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I know absolutely nothing about her. I didn't even know if the writer was a woman since the name can be used by both sexes. I'll take your word about her though.

Why take my word? Red her web page. I am confident that you can form an opinion about her without my input based on the fact that you have dogmatic views regarding related issues. I note your trust in me, thank you, but the web page is worth exploring and filled with enough revelations about herself that you can form a position regarding Day.

Your posts about sin and evil did not deal with the texts where sin is not in view, so I wasn't sure how that meaning of evil fit into your views.

It's hard to find material where the distinction between sin and evil is discussed in detail.
None of our systematic theology books cover that topic.
What theologians have you read on this topic?

Actually my posts did deal with it, somewhat. Though not exhaustive they did deal with evil in the context of sin, particularly its origin and the assignment of "the evil one" to Lucifer.

In all fairness you owe a clear objection to any passage I have dealt with so far as well as the obligation to demonstrate from your own thoughts a rebuttal countering my thesis. State what passages are unclear or why you cannot accept this thesis in view of whatever passages you believe support your objections and an explanation as to why.

And even if you don't have objections per Scripture, make clear and distinct what and why you find objectionable in my thesis.

Maybe that isn't something you want to pursue for now, and if so fine. If that is the case tell me and I will no further elaborate in detail about the topic seeing that the development of my arguments aren't appreciated with equal responses and rebuttals.

I found two websites that deal with evil directly or in relationship to Satan and demons (I am not condoning or condemning the sites or their teaching, both are within the realm of orthodox evangelical doctrine, hence I pointed them out because you had not found others).

Survey of Bible Doctrine: Angels, Satan, Demons
Doctrine of Evil

Thanks
Q

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Why take my word? Red her web page. I am confident that you can form an opinion about her without my input based on the fact that you have dogmatic views regarding related issues. I note your trust in me, thank you, but the web page is worth exploring and filled with enough revelations about herself that you can form a position regarding Day.
Actually my posts did deal with it, somewhat. Though not exhaustive they did deal with evil in the context of sin, particularly its origin and the assignment of "the evil one" to Lucifer.

In all fairness you owe a clear objection to any passage I have dealt with so far as well as the obligation to demonstrate from your own thoughts a rebuttal countering my thesis. State what passages are unclear or why you cannot accept this thesis in view of whatever passages you believe support your objections and an explanation as to why.

And even if you don't have objections per Scripture, make clear and distinct what and why you find objectionable in my thesis.

Maybe that isn't something you want to pursue for now, and if so fine. If that is the case tell me and I will no further elaborate in detail about the topic seeing that the development of my arguments aren't appreciated with equal responses and rebuttals.

I found two websites that deal with evil directly or in relationship to Satan and demons (I am not condoning or condemning the sites or their teaching, both are within the realm of orthodox evangelical doctrine, hence I pointed them out because you had not found others).

Survey of Bible Doctrine: Angels, Satan, Demons
Doctrine of Evil

Thanks
Q

Alex, I wasn't criticizing your posts thus far on the issue. I currently have no opinion cause I've never read anything on this topic.
I will check out the links you provided when I get a quiet moment.
Thanks for including them.