Evil Shatters the World
(Fair Use)
Armstrongism: A Brief Case Study in Theodicy
By Scout
Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing: whence then is evil? - David Hume, Eighteenth Century Philosopher
“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.” - Job
One of the most difficult areas of theology is theodicy. Theodicy seeks to answer the question, “If God is all-powerful and perfectly righteous, why is there evil in the world?” I have come across many unsatisfactory answers to this question in my reading of theology. I personally do not have a solution to offer. In this short essay I would like to pose a much narrower question of theodicy: If Armstrongism is harmful to people, why does God permit it to exist?
Answering this question, as I have approached it, is essentially justifying God. This starts with the proposition that Armstrongism is harmful. And this harmfulness is an assertion that I will not deal with in this context though the pages of this blog are rife with data in support of this proposition. Then one must explain why God would permit something harmful to exist and have influence. What follows are two reasons among many for why God might permit Armstrongism to exist:
· God wants us to understand that a religion can be concocted using Biblical vocabulary that may sound like Christianity but it is not.
· God wants us to understand that the nature of a church is not to be found in what it says about itself but in what it does.
These are just two justifications that might emerge in answer to this question. There are many others. And reactions to these justifications will vary. To some people this is evidence that God mercifully teaches people using real world issues. Christians have been elected to train for the Priesthood and will reign with Christ and understanding the two principles above will be important. To others, the idea that even only one person loses salvation because of the existence of Armstrongism places a mark on all of us and diminishes all of us throughout eternity. The cost is much greater than any benefit. What we need is the clarification that would be granted to us by knowing God’s view on this yet when we independently try to construct the Godly view our limited understanding fails us.
Why doesn’t God just pull the plug on Armstrongism, if it represents a serious harm to lives of some people? I admit that I do not know.
57 comments:
The issues/questions you raise Scout have been pondered by countless others down through history. I think of the holocaust. And those that followed. I believe the holocaust occurred because of the inherent evil found in the human psyche. As is commented on in Job, man drinks sin like water. I don’t believe in the inherent good of mankind. And many good descent innocent people died in the flames of WW2. We all suffer and will continue too. Until Christ returns. Who then can be saved? With man it is impossible but with God all things are possible. We must make do with an impossible task, living in a world separated from God but next to Him at the same time.
Scout, I suspect the answer to your question about God allowing Armstrongism (and the larger question about the presence of evil) is found in your admission that you do not know. I would say that none of us can truly comprehend or fathom the mind of God. We make decisions and choices in life based on a very limited perspective and database of information. Unlike God, we cannot see the end of all things - we cannot foresee all of the consequences of our decisions.
Like Adam and Eve before us, we decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil. Based on our own experience and the "hurts" or "harms" that we associated with it, we view some event as positive or negative, "bad" or "good." Many of us here view our experience in Armstrongism as having been very unpleasant, negative, hurtful, wasteful and harmful, or even evil (I know that I do). And yet, I understand that I would not be the person I am today without having had that experience. I learned so many things about myself, others, and life in general that I might not have incorporated into the person known as Lonnie without having had that experience! I know that I am more careful, thoughtful, kind, humble, forgiving, merciful, and tolerant than I was back then. I know that I am less dogmatic, certain, opinionated, materialistic, racist, and self-serving than I used to be.
Why do we have the ability to learn and make choices/decisions (or have what some of us refer to as free will)? As a parent and grandparent, I have experienced the pain of being forced to sometimes allow my children/grandchildren to make poor choices. It is painful to watch them reject my training and learn some lesson in the school of hard knocks. I would save them from the pain and sorrow that I know will follow, but I also understand that somethings have to be learned through experience. "Don't touch that stove - It's hot - you'll get burned!"
Anyone who is familiar with me and my family has heard the story of the tornado and the ATV accident. A powerful F3 tornado (responsible for killing 6 people and injuring another 130) danced through MY yard, where my two children and my brother's children were sleeping in our mobile home. The storm hit in the wee hours of a February morning, and we had just enough time to get them out of bed and kneel in the hallway to say a quick prayer. The neighbors on all four sides of us suffered catastrophic damage to their homes and severe injuries, but our mobile home remained intact! Then, just nine years later, one of the children that had been spared in my mobile home that day died in a horrific ATV crash.
Why had she been spared from the tornado only to die nine years later in that awful accident? Was it just chance? Was it by design? Were we all spared because one of our number would be needed later to play some part in God's plans - design? What would her life had been like (she was only 15 years old)? Would she have had children? Would she have experienced joy or heartache? I do know that three other lives were saved that day by the donation of her organs. How would those the lives of those three people unfold? How many lives would they influence along the way? There is just so much that we do not - cannot know? You know - the butterfly flapping its wings and the pebble being dropped into the middle of a pond thingy.
We can speculate, but we don't have enough information to really make even an educated guess. What do you think?
Anonymous 8:10
Look at it this way: all the sentient creatures in the creation operate under license from God. God permits what you describe in your comment. God permits Armstrongism to operate. This means to me that there is a purpose for this - not just random evil acts. But I don't know what the purpose is.
One of the most salient issues in human life and we, for the most part, do not have an understanding of what it is about. The elephant in the room.
Scout
You wonder why God doesn't just pull the plug on Armstrongism?
In a sense He has pulled the plug. The edifice built on lies has crumbled.
People, or I should say many people, including myself, who joined thinking it was the only one true church and possessed with the extreme vanity only we knew truth (whilst other believers did not ) had to face the reality of our error.
We become forced to re-evaluate everything, and through this process and with a spirit of perseverance, and turmoil, we have come out stronger and more anchored in our faith.
Those who seek to rebuild Armstrongism are yet to learn, as they don't want to. They still believe things taught by Armstrong embody truth, unable to see the magnitude of the lie.
But God is not going to force those who choose to remain in the vestiges of the crumbling 'one true church' any different outcome if they steadfastly refuse to hear and refuse to see.
Hopefully in time they too will wake up but this won't occur if their whole endeavor is to recreate the fakeries of Armstrong.
Jesus gave the lesson of knowing false teachers by their fruits. He did not go into manner of doctrines. If people refuse to follow Jesus's teaching here when ample opportunity has abounded for decades that Armstrong fruits were really bad, it will persist. For how long we don't know.
One of the most mysterious laws of the universe is polarity. The minute a positive is known, it also automatically obviates the complete opposite of that positive. It can never be that the negative to that positive does not exist. Negatives will always exist even if only in the hypothetical realm. Poles exert a pull, the strength of which is determined by one's closeness or proximity to that pole.
The concept of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has always baffled me. How can one only have knowledge regarding the positives, when these positives also immediately make one aware of their opposites, the negatives? To put this into Armstrongist terms, the instant one becomes aware of the sabbath, one also becomes aware of its opposite, the breaking of the sabbath.
Armstrongism is simply one of the opposites, or negatives. And, there are any number of very similar negatives. Humans are capable of focussing upon or being drawn to not only the positives and negatives, but also the temporary positions which can exist in between those poles, including the neutral zone in the precise middle, equidistant between the two poles.
BB
Miller Jones 8:57 wrote, “Unlike God, we cannot see the end of all things - we cannot foresee all of the consequences of our decisions.
Milller, I appreciate your insight on this topic and your willingness to relate a personal experience.
Part of the problem in discussing this topic is level of abstraction. For example, one might say that opposing evil develops character. This then makes evil a link in an essential chain of events that leads to good. Would God really make a creation where a foundational and constructive principle is evil? We could debate the issue of evil at that level but this is downstream from the classical problem of evil. At the extreme level of abstraction, we might ask why evil even exists at all. Could it not have been interdicted at inception so that it would not take over the Cosmos? I do not believe the God of all grace would do this lightly. There must be some purpose involved here that we do not see or comprehend.
We are all beings whose formation included exposure to evil. Christ himself dealt with it and came to deliver us from it. And in the Eschaton, evil will not exist. Some might speculate that it is educational. My guess is that this is the best answer. But it challenges the imagination to believe that the Holocaust was merely a classroom. The profundity of evil outweighs all the conjectures I have ever read as to why it exists. It is a mystery.
A theological sidebar: The Augustinian view is that evil does not really have substance. Evil is a privative attribute of Good. In other words, evil is the absence of Good. This was confusing to me when I first read it but many theologians believe this. I thought, if evil can be defined as an absence of Good, why can’t we define Good as the absence of evil. Good then would be a privative attribute of evil. This is possible semantically but is true in reality? The Biblical revelation is that it is the other way around because God created Good. In Genesis we have, “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” So, in the created realm, Good is substantive and evil is privative.
Scout
I know it's customary here to search for Biblical or Theological explanations behind some of the great questions we ponder on a daily basis. God also created the laws of the universe, so it is totally valid to look to those for answers as well. It's not as if we aren't already aware of weeds, termites, gnats, waste materials, and all the great predators in Earth's ecosystem. Armstrongism fits into some of those classifications very well, especially the waste materials and predator.
I just wish there were a more universal protection against some of these things. Unfortunately, it often requires damaging experiences to keep us aware of the negative and bad. I also have to remember that the negative pole in an electrical circuit provides a method of completing the circuit so that the electricity has direction and a place to flow. Or, if you are dealing with early British Lucas automotive and motorcycle electrics, "positive earth" is used.
BB
So many questions, so few answers. We were instructed not to eat of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The adversary said we wouldn’t die if we ate, but be like God knowing good and evil. The rest is history, and we collectively have come to know both good and evil. Our own helplessness is amplified by the knowledge that Jesus was preordained to come even before the foundation of this present world. In our present form we are helpless, like leaves in a breeze. We await redemption, which Christ won for us with His death and resurrection. We have come to know good and evil and live with its appalling consequences daily. Perhaps that is the purpose. To learn to experience to suffer and finally to acknowledge there must be a better way, and that way is before us, in Christ. I know my short commentary here will be unsatisfactory and inadequate for many, as I said, so many questions………
This is what I am thinking. Nothing can exist unless God wants it to exist, so how does evil come into existence? And here I am thinking of Byker Bob’s polarity example in a way. If God creates something, it can have an inherent absence effect that is sort of like an opposite pole. If God creates water, then dryness comes into existence along with it even though dryness was not the intended object of creation. Dryness is an existential hitch-hiker. Likewise, if God creates something good then its absence, something bad, can possibly exist. It is almost as if evil is an unintended consequence, a consequence that need never happen. It is a privative attribute of good just like Augustine asserted.
But this is not the full story. We cannot use this model to say that God never intended evil and it was a surprise when evil originally happened. Say, one day God discovered that one of his sentient beings elected to do something that was not good. And this snowballed and now the Cosmos is pervaded by evil. Paul speaks of this “present evil world” (aionios – age in Greek). God created time. He knows past present and future. Evil did not just slip by him. He knew it was going to happen. It has a utility and its utility is a mystery. Armstrongism may be useful in the lives of some people for some set of conditions and outcomes. Though it seems like Armstrongism should not exist. But it does.
Scout
Considering the vast scope of this subject, with its many theories and categories, I agree that on the "individual" level, we find ourselves in the same position as Job's friends, that we don't have enough information to really know or speculate what's really going on in a person's life and given circumstance. But, on the collective scale, those conspicuous movements which affect the great masses of humanity in a negative way by bringing out the worst in man's nature, Scripture gives many clues as to their origin, why evil exists, why God allows it, and how long He will permit it to flourish before He pulls the plug.
.
There are many things in this "world" that are just as harmful as Armstrongism. Armstrongism is but a microcosm of this world system and its many destructive forces. On this site, it would be anathema to suggest one could somehow make Armstrongism presentable and "better". Yet, most wouldn't have a problem at all believing this " world" could be made a better place through good deeds derived from human planning and effort. A fitting comparison would be whited sepulchres (the Pharisees) who appear beautiful outward, but within are full of dead men's bones. It's neither possible or scriptural!
One thing is for sure. In His own time God has promised to destroy evil, make all things new, and "send Jesus Christ, whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things", Acts 3:20-21
BB 728. Your powerful point on polarity is very revealing. It unlocks many biblical passages!
Why doesn’t God just pull the plug on Armstrongism ...
Why doesn’t God just pull the plug on people who ask that question. They have problems too.
Theodicy is a study in theology that does not seem to be popular. I believe it is because nobody has good solutions for the various problems it raises. Yet the failure of the church to develop an effective theology is of great moment. Many people leave Christianity or never even get started on Christianity because, after viewing some tragedy, they cannot conclude that a gracious and merciful God exists.
Theodicy also has great pastoral relevance. A pastor who must be with a set of parents who just lost a child may be asked questions that are within in the realm of theodicy. "If there is a good God, why did my child die."
Some of the most profound issues in Christianity are questions of Theodicy yet Theodicy gets little air time. I believe there is more discussion of Theodicy among atheists than among Christians. Notice how few people respond to this little post. There is not even the ususal flood of sound-bites.
I am not being critical. I don't have much to say about Theodicy myself. It is a difficult topic for the pulpit. And I would imagine that the people in the pews do not often express much curiosity about it.
Scout
Thanks, BP8. I can't take complete credit for that concept. Years ago, I read a paper on the presence and implications of some of the natural laws which prevail throughout the universe, and of them, the principle of polarity was perhaps the biggest takeaway for me. Polar opposites are quite ubiquitous throughout nature. I immediately pondered the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Also, everything in the entire creation is vibrating! Solid items are vibrating, but at humanly imperceivable slow rates. People can be sensitive to, and influenced by specific vibrations, such as music, or the sweet sounds of some good custom Harley Davidson exhaust pipes.
Another factor that people may not realize is that some of mankind's best inventions work in part because man has learned to utilize select laws of physics against one another, to make the seemingly impossible possible. Flight of incredibly heavy aircraft was cited as a primary example of this.
BB
Scout 918
You might scoff, but I always thought Theodicy was one of Armstrong's strongest hooks. They had several articles on the subject and a booklet (not sure of the exact title), "God, Why Did You Let Tommy Die"?
Personally, I'm aware of many who were comforted by the idea of the second resurrection to a chance for salvation, which alleviated the fear people had about a loved one going to hell before they had an interest or opportunity to know Jesus Christ. This was especially true for those with children who died from a disease, accident, or some evil action.
Armstrong's Theodicy summation? This is not God's world!
BB 1249
I'm more familiar with the concept through the idea of "the 2 classification of things", an idea prominent in the early 20th century. The Bible is explicit on this. A sampling would include
Light, darkness
Life, death
Good, evil
Truth, error
God, Satan
and a ARMSTRONG favorite, give, get.
The "2 ways" follow this pattern.
Anonymous 2:38 wrote, “Our own helplessness is amplified by the knowledge that Jesus was preordained to come even before the foundation of this present world.”
). From this we know that God knew what the effect of evil would be on humankind. Humankind would need a savior. I have also wondered what the adversary was doing in the Garden of Eden. Why was that influence permitted to be there at all? Could Adam and Eve really be expected to resist the adversary’s blandishments?
This is a very preceptive comment. Christ was slain from the foundation of the Cosmos (Rev 13:8
The data makes it seem like evil was to be a foreordained part of human history. People sometimes wonder what would human history be if Adam and Eve had just done the right thing. That was never going to happen. Christ had already been slain when Adam and Eve awakened to the presence of God. The Cosmos had been founded billions of years earlier.
I do not think that God was thwarted by Adam and Eve and had to switch from Plan A to Plan B. I believe that right now, everything is going according to plan for humanity. The model is the Creation, then the Cross, and finally the Re-creation. But why this has to be the model is a mystery. Another piece of data to bring into the picture is that I know that we will all be different people in the future because we had practical exposure to evil rather than classroom exposure to evil. Another piece of data: the educational value of evil is paled by the intensity of what has actually happened. The Holocaust is not a learning experience – it is a monumental, near incomprehensible tragedy.
Theodicy is an uncomfortable study. It does not feel like the study of, say, soteriology. I think this is because theodicy seems to automatically put the student in the mode of second-guessing God about the very fundamentals of his plan for Creation and Humankind. All the answers will eventually come to us and we will see that God is correct. But in the meantime, looking through a glass darkly and seeing only part of the story naturally invokes conjecture. That’s the way we are created.
Scout
And another thing. The animal realm is disgusting. I watched a documentary on animal life one afternoon and it showed a pack of wolves running down a coyote and killing a coyote. The wolves ate the coyote. Right now, on my TV I am seeing a pack of wolves run down a bison in the snow. There is a great struggle and the bison is eaten alive. The snow is scarlet and the wolves are howling. The revolting predator-prey cycle has been going on since nearly the beginning of life on earth.
A leading minister at the headquarters of Grace Communion International once put me in touch with a scientist who is a Christian. The scientist and I had a little correspondence about the animal world. He was very much a proponent of the idea that the animal realm was idyllic. He posited the idea that we mistakenly believed that when animals ate other animals, the victims felt pain. He felt that we mistakenly projected our feelings onto animals. Anyone who has ever seen an animal kill another animal knows that this idea is preposterous. The animal victims die for real and in agony just like we would. Whence and wherefore this evil?
Scout
Not long ago, wolves were reintroduced in some national park in order to keep the deer population down. The deer were destroying the habitant by over grazing and muddying the local streams. The before and after photos show the improvement once the wolves were reintroduced. I've wondered whether the existence of vicious animals has something to do with God's background. There's two individuals in the Godhead, but could it be that there were more than two at some point. Was there a nasty "civil war" which resulted in only two remaining? Are vicious animals a reminder to not thread that road? Just speculating.
This debate has not gone into defining the different types of evil. Perhaps that's not the angle and evil is evil but there is natural evil and personal evil and demonic evil. Scripture also defines seven evils God hates.
Anonymous 9:56
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. The predator prey cycle is not a reflection of God but a reflection of man. In the animal kingdom we see systems that testify to the demerits of unbridled competition. Adam Smith advocated competition and HWA condemned it. I think HWA was right. It is difficult to squeeze the idea of competition into the space occupied by the ethic of love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
I believe in a managed or governed competitive market. Pure competition is an ecomomic engine without morality. In nature, we are given an example of the pure competition engine. C.S. Lewis said that nobody would posit a benevolent God based on what is seen in nature. Some state that man came to believe in a higher power through observing nature. Lewis rightly points out the a benevolent God is a God that is revealed by scripture and not nature. I hold with Lewis.
Scout
OK, 2:16. You just volunteered! Define it for us. Give us the gory details!
BB
I generally find two types of evil that theologians identify. Moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is stems from the behavior of sentient beings. Natural evil is like a tornado hitting a small Kansas town and wiping out people and property.
But there may be others and subcategories. I, like Byker Bob, am curious about your list.
Scout
My comment at 2:16 has no mention of lists. I don't do gore.
I was responding to the 'The animal world is disgusting' comment which is technically about natural evil but other earlier commentators are addressing moral evil.
Anonymous 11:50
You wrote, "Scripture also defines seven evils God hates." This sounds much like a list. My guess is that you are not referring to categories of evil in this statement but various acts of evil that might all be in the same category.
The usual broad categories of evil are natural evil and moral evil. Moral evil is probably what you are calling personal evil. Natural evil is like the destructive tornado I mentioned. Moral evil refers to the action of human beings and other sentient beings. Often religious figures attempt to connect natural evil with moral evil. Because a hurricane struck at certain city there must have been more sin than usual there. I personally believe that some religious figures do this to make themselves seem more powerful. And as one observer quipped, isn’t it strange how God is always angry during hurricane season. Making natural evil a consequence of moral evil always requires judgementalism that is open to question.
This is a broad topic and well worth discussion but I did not intend to include it in my short essay.
Scout
The special mission God gave Israel to destroy the corrupt race of Canannitish nations has caused many to stumble, and has been viewed by atheist's and believes alike as pure cruelty on the part of a God who is supposed to be loving and merciful. How could a just God order the blatant slaughter of men, women, children, and animals (Deut.20:7
, Josh 3:10
, 1 Sam 15:3
)?
, 12:1-6
, where Satan deliberately tries to frustrate the plan and purpose of God by preventing the coming of the seed of the woman, thus averting his own doom. As soon as it was made known that the seed was to come through Abraham, Satan moved to occupy the land in advance and so contest the occupation by his seed. When Abraham entered Canaan we read, "the Canaanite was then (already) in the land", Genesis 12:6
. By God sending a message to the Adversary, people die!
E.W. Bullinger contends this goes back to Genesis 3:15
There are many Biblical examples of this same interaction between Satan and God where humans were caught in the crosshairs. Is there any justification for this? You be the judge. But like God told Job, I'm God and you are NOT!
BP8 8:37
It is important to recognize that the extermination of the Canaanites was a “fall back” position. God’s original intention was to use a non-lethal means of removing the Canaanites from the promised land. God wrote in Exodus 23:
“And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.”
But the Israelites showed themselves wanton and God appears to have made the campaign against the Canaanites a punitive mission not only for the Canaanites but for the Israelites. Killing other people is not a lark. Especially if you are killing women and children. Judging from some of the war experiences I have read about, it will scar you for life. Even killing children accidentally in warfare can create immense psychological trauma. Further, the Bible gives us no data on this, but it is likely that Israelites were killed by Canaanites in these wars.
Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. As the fulfillment, he stated and exemplified that we should love our neighbors. Whatever happened in the OT, it is summarized in Christ. Jesus did not carry forward into the NT Ekklesia any of the violence that involved national Israel. If Israelites were not killed, I would imagine this providence would have been mentioned in scripture.
Armstrongism held a unique view of the Canaanite issue. They believe that the OT Law is written on their hearts though the Holy Spirit. Hence, among their ministry and membership historically you would find support for the idea that Native Americans should have been exterminated by the White European settlers of North America. I would imagine some of the more conservative denominations still hold to this. I recall a speech in Spokesman Club back in the Seventies where a member lauded his ancestors for settling the land and “killing Indians.” The Director did not correct this idea because it was widely held at that time.
Scout
Correction
In regard to my comment made at 4:23 PM:
The sentence: "If Israelites were not killed, I would imagine this providence would have been mentioned in scripture." belongs at the end of the previous paragraph. Sorry.
Scout
In response to the Israelite conquest of Caanan:
In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar [586 BC] he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons [men?] [832]: (AV).
The whole company numbered 42,360, 
besides their 7,337 menservants and maidservants; and they also had 200 men and women singers. (NIV).
, seem realistic why others seem unrealistic, as in Ezr 2:64-65
.
“Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon.
And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.
Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth?
SO JOSHUA TOOK THE WHOLE LAND, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and THERE REMAINETH YET VERY MUCH LAND TO BE POSSESSED.
"After kingship had descended from heaven, Eridu became the seat of kingship. In Eridu Aululim reigned 28,800 years as king. Alalgar reigned 36,000 years. Two kings, reigned 64,800 years” (Sumerian King List).
One of the difficulties in reading the Bible, especially the OT, is that tradents and scribes used hyperbole — the custom of day — in so much of their communications that it is difficult to know what really happened.
Jer 52:29
Ezr 2:64
Ezr 2:65
Some numbers, as in Jer 52:28-30
Some time back I mused that Israelites used a hyperbolic factor of 10 to embellish their rhetorical accounts. So it was of interest that in "Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period" it noted, based on archaeological findings, that:
“Considering that not all returnees settled in new sites and that some of the descendants of those who remained in the land moved to new sites, the number of returnees in Persian I may be estimated at a maximum of 4,000 people”.
It is suggested that the “about six hundred thousand on foot that were men” who left Egypt were about 60,000 men; and even this number may be too high. It is also suggested that Solomon’s 700 wives were around 70 in number.
"A close analysis of OT prophecy reveals that many prophecies were not fulfilled either in part or in whole" (Robert Chisholm, When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic, JETS 53/3, September 2010, 561–77 - free download on internet).
Jer 51:11
It is suggested that while prophecies of destruction were often worst case scenarios — total animation and devastation — the expectation was not necessary that it would be fulfilled literally.
Eze 26:12
“Eventually the city [of Tyre] surrendered, but it seems there was no destruction such as Ezekiel had predicted, and worse (for Nebuchadnezzar and his disgruntled veterans), no booty" (Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel, BST, p.248).
Eze 12:22
Of course there would some recalcitrants who would want a literal fulfilment.
Because of the use of hyperbole when a modern reader reads the account of the Israelite conquest of Caanan too literally it give God a bad rap. Below are some comments which provides some perspective on what happened:
Jos 11:23
Jos 13:1
“Deuteronomy’s discourse shares with the book of Joshua “the rhetoric of extreme destruction and annihilation of life” reflecting the stock phraseology and fixed idioms of ancient Near Eastern military jargon [Lawson G. Stone, “Early Israel,” 159-60]. The phraseology used here for capturing all the cities and destroying every inhabitant without sparing a single survivor is stereotypical and hyperbolic language emphasizing the completeness of the victory.
Part 2
; 11:16-20
). Yet the book of Judges (whose final editor must have been aware of these accounts in Joshua) sees no contradiction in telling us that the process of subduing the inhabitant of the land was far from completed and went on for some considerable time. So even in the Old Testament itself, rhetorically generalizations is recognized for what it is. We need, therefore, in reading some of the more graphical descriptions, either what was commanded to be done, or recorded as accomplished, to allow for this rhetorical element. This is not to accuse the biblical writers of falsehood, but to recognize the literary conventions of writing about warfare” (Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, pp.474-75).
] encompasses quite a bit of land. Indeed, a rough estimate would place the success level at around 50 percent at the highest... As a matter of fact, Canaan was not completely subdued until the time of David a number of centuries later. The author is intentionally using UNIVERSALISTIC LANGUAGE and intends to convey rhetorically, that the conquest was complete, but did not correspond to the actual geographical scope of the conquest. Thus it uses hyperbole to make a theological point...” (Tremper Longman III & John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood, p.32).
So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe.
Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the LORD, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them?
The complete destruction of cities and annihilations of whole populations are claims made by nearly all people groups of the ancient Near East. However, ancient armies seldom controlled the technology or other resources to accomplish these claims, nor could they prevent the escape of many survivors from such cities, which were often abandoned before a battle” (Bill T. Arnold, The Book of Deuteronomy Chapters 1-11, NICOT, p.190).
“We do need to allow for the exaggerated language of warfare. Israel, like other nations of the ancient Near East whose documents we possess, had a rhetoric of war that often exceed reality on the ground. Even in the Old Testament itself this phenomenon is recognized and accepted. It is well known, for example, that the book of Joshua describes the conquest in rhetorically total terms - all the land is captured, all the kings are defeated, all the people without survivors are destroyed (e.g. Josh 10:40-42
"A Bible atlas will show visually that this description [Josh 13:1-6
Jos 10:40
Jos 11:14b
Jdg 1:1
“If the Canaanites had been extirpated in the manner described in the Book of Joshua there would have been no need to attack them again” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).
“As Stone observes, some of these texts claiming to have annihilated the enemy include other statements in the near context boasting of tribute levied against those same populations” (Bill T. Arnold, The Book of Deuteronomy Chapters 1-11, NICOT, p.190).
“... the issue of devotion to destruction was ultimately about whether or not people set themselves against Yahweh’s purposes for his people. In other words, those destroyed were those who continued to oppose what God was doing and would themselves have chosen to destroy Israel. So this was not random violence; those who did not set themselves against Israel, and who probably fled their towns during battle, were not destroyed and hunted down.
Part 3
And YHWH your God turns them over to you and you strike them dead [nkh], then YOU SIMPLY MUST DESTROY [HRM] THEM. You shall not make a covenant with them. You must not show them favor. 
YOU SHALL NOT INTERMARRY WITH THEM; you shall not give your daughter to his son and you shall not take his daughter for your son.
So shall it be with all the men that set their faces to go into Egypt to sojourn there ... and none of them shall remain or escape from the evil that I will bring upon them.
So that none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain, that they should return into the land of Judah, to the which they have a desire to return to dwell there: for none shall return but such as shall escape.
Throughout this chapter [10] it is notable that although Israel is an invading people, the battle themselves were initially defensive — Israel had to overcome those who chose to attack them” (David G. Firth, The Message of Joshua, BST, p.127).
“Of course, the OT often uses language about total destruction hyperbolically, such as when Canaanite tribes are said to be utterly annihilated but members of those ethnic groups turn up later on. Hence there's room for survivors if you read this as hyperbole” (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/39142/question-about-the-egyptian-firstborn-in-exodus).
Violence in the Old Testament (Part 1, 2 & 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hotJ7p0f9I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGVn1gaSsAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf2lX1nYkKw
Dt 7:2a
Dt 7:3
“The temporal clause finally culminates in Israel’s mandate: then you simply must destroy them. The absolute obligation denoted by the syntax and represented in this translation as “you simply must,” acknowledges the grave difficulty in fulfilling this mandate. This will not be easy. The action in question, “destroy, put under a ban of destruction” (hrm), is a verb that occurs eight times in Deuteronomy. The concept of “utter destruction” has been much studied and has often led to misunderstanding, as when it has been perceived as “devoted” to YHWH for destruction or otherwise as a sacrifice. As is shown by its uses elsewhere in the Old Testament, especially in the narrative texts influenced by Deuteronomy, this is a concept related to wars of extermination, emphasizing the extent of victory. No survivors remain, including noncombatants (women, children, and livestock). The concept also includes the restriction against keeping the spoils of war for oneself; nothing is permitted as war spoils for the Israelites. Closely related to the verbal concept is “strike, strike down; kill (nkh), preceding it here and translated strike them dead. While there is much uncertainty about the origin and history of the concept, and whether several proposed parallels from the ancient Near East are truly relevant, the verbal root hrm in contexts of war denotes total destruction or extermination (the often repeated “consecrated to destruction” is unsupported by the facts), whereas the noun herem denotes “a certain sacral status of persons of objects,” and therefore belongs to the semantic domain of the sacred [Versluis, Command to Exterminate, 46-54, here 52]. Thus when something comes under “ban,” it enters a state or condition of the exclusive possession of YHWH, is therefore withdrawn from ordinary human use, and thus “destruction” is a natural secondary implication though not its primary meaning” (Bill T. Arnold, The Book of Deuteronomy Chapters 1-11, NICOT, p.437).
Jer 42:17
Jer 44:14
“The command in this chapter to exterminate the Canaanites is the clearest example in the Old Testament of “what is arguably the single most morally and theologically problematic aspect of the Old Testament” [R.W. L. Moberly, “Towards an Interpretation of the Shema,” in Theological Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, p.134).
Part 4
You shall not make a covenant with them. You must not show them favor. 
You shall not intermarry with them;...
We cannot minimize the problem that emerges with this command, which center around the image it portrays of God. In reading this text, however, we must keep in mind the way Deuteronomy uses stock phraseology and fixed idioms for military jargon, many of which are common in the ancient Near Eastern parlance (see commentary at 2:34). Hyperbolic language to describe the completeness of the victory is a technique employed by nearly all people groups of the ancient Near East. However, ancient armies seldom controlled the technology or other resources to accomplish these claims, nor could they prevent the escape of many from the cities, which were often abandoned immediately before a battle. Regardless of the extent to which the command was fulfilled historically, the theological problem of YHWH commanding Israel to perform the herem ban will continue to require studied attention. Perhaps the best approach for now is to accept the practice as an ancient battlefield strategy, realistic or not, that has become a metaphor in Deuteronomy to encourage and enable Israel’s strict allegiance to YHWH in a religious context in which conflicting allegiances were in competition every day. This chapter is especially focused on the “particularizing logic of love” as an expression of Israel’s election (vv. 9-11), and so the need to practice a religious herem ban (metaphorically) is closely related to Israel’s calling, and the image has been transformed by Deuteronomy into a metaphor about religious practices related to covenant faithfulness to YHWH in Israel’s everyday life. IF INDEED THE COMMAND IS A RHETORICAL TECHNIQUE RECONSTITUTING AN ANCIENT BATTLEFIELD STRATEGY, THERE IS NO LITERAL COMMAND ENVISIONING THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE” (Bill T. Arnold, The Book of Deuteronomy Chapters 1-11, NICOT, pp.437-38).
“When Yahweh had done his part, however, the Israelites however were to do theirs — destroy them totally. As the NIV footnote informs us, the Hebrew word translated here “totally” (heherim) had a technical sense. The common explanation that it meant “devoting” things or people to Yahweh is probably not the best. A better explanation seems to be that it is an absolute and irrevocable renouncing of things or persons, a refusal to take any gain or profit from them. Thus, in obedience to this command, things or persons could be renounced without necessarily being destroyed. This explanation provides a context in which the instruction prohibiting treaties or intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land would make sense. If the local people needed to be destroyed, then verse 3 would be rather unnecessary, since everyone should have been exterminated...” (Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, NIBC, p.109).
Dt 7:2b
Dt 7:3a
“There follow here three prohibitions relative to the very nations Israel was supposed to destroy, perhaps illustrating that the herem ban commanded in v. 2a was metaphorical. There would hardly have been a need to express these commands if the inhabitants of Canaan have all been exterminated” (Bill T. Arnold, The Book of Deuteronomy Chapters 1-11, NICOT, p.438).
“The command to destroy the seven nations completely is followed by further commands prohibiting intermingling in any way (2b-4). This is strictly illogical. It is intended, however, to explain the herem requirement...” (J.G. McConville, Deuteronomy, ApOTC, p.153).
“Each of the three injunctions is expressed in the so-called “prohibition formula” used in the Ten Commandment and common in the Old Testament’s legal materials... The final prohibition — that against intermarriage with the inhabitants of Canaan — is expanded for clarity” (Bill T. Arnold, The Book of Deuteronomy Chapters 1-11, NICOT, pp.438-39).
If you expect churches to follow those two principles as stated in original post then no christian denomination in the modern world can stand and Christianity would be completely wiped out.
You expect standards from Sabbath Christians that you do not demand from other denominations such as Baptists, Catholics or Evangelicals.
Scout 423 / Multi-part person 734
, 4:1
).
, John 16:33
, Heb.2:14
).
, Rom. 6:9
).
)!
You both have demonstrated what I was trying to convey, that like God explained to Job, He is in control, His plan has purpose, He is aware of all evil and suffering, and the innocent sometimes die through no fault of their own.
Conclusion? His perspective on everything pertaining to life, death, evil, suffering, and righteousness is different from ours!
Christ by word and example suffered for us (2 Peter 2:21
He has overcome and delivered us from this present evil world (Gal. 1:4
He has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel (2Tim. 1:10
Can anything separate us from the love of Christ? No (Rom. 8:35-39
Anonymous 11:48 wrote, “If you expect churches to follow those two principles as stated in original post then no Christian denomination in the modern world can stand and Christianity would be completely wiped out.”
What you are asserting is that there really is no such thing as Christianity. That Armstrongism and orthodox Christianity are so much alike, that what affects one will concomitantly affect the other. While there are differences in Christian denominations, they are nothing like the huge difference there is between Christianity and Armstrongism. Both Christians and Armstrongists will tell you that. Just ask them.
But which corresponds to the Christianity of the Bible? That is the subject of this blog and you will notice that Armstrongists do not often show up to defend their position. That is informative concerning how confident they are about what they believe.
Scout
Parts 1,2,3,4
states in part, “… when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them”.
Deut 7:1-6
There are some aspects of this that raise questions in my mind. First, this does not appear to be the direct word of God but the word of Moses. We might ask if he accurately conveyed God’s intent. I do not doubt this passage was written by Moses. It is in the Deuteronomist portion of the Torah – the part that Moses likely wrote. Second, since God is not constrained by spacetime, he knew the future and knew that the Israelites would not “utterly” destroy the Canaanites. The use of the term “utterly” may be hyperbolic as some of your sources suggest. It may also be self-justifying. The Deuteronomist writers wanted to seem to have done what God required. That makes a glorious though fictitious history. So, you find people utterly destroyed in the Book of Joshua and a few chapters later they are back again. God let his children tell the story.
There is also the possibility of embellishment for political purposes. The Israelites were always at odds with the other residents of Palestine and these extermination scriptures assigned them to their "rightful" place. There is a species of this in early North America. Early American writers embellished stories about Indian Captivities because it assigned Indians to their appropriate place of barbarism and made it easier to justify their extermination and dispossession. The fictional embellishments made good reading and a good case for the policy of the time.
What is not apparent to us in the extermination passages of scripture is God’s emotional tenor. Earlier I mentioned the guy in Spokesman Club bragging about his forebears killing Indians. In the minds of such people, God was gleefully happy to go after the Canaanites. Moses and his army of patriotic farmers and shepherds attacked the Canaanites with great gusto like a gourmet at his meal. And in their minds we should have the same feelings about people of color in the USA. Displays of this kind of thoughtless zeal are just embarrassing and childish.
But we instead find a God who says he has no joy in the death of the wicked. He believed people should love their neighbors. He sent Jonah to the dread Assyrians and spared them when they repented. He renounced David as a bloody man and would not let him build a Temple for him. He hung on a cross and asked that his murderers be forgiven. I feel confident in asserting that God was deeply saddened by what had to be done to the Canaanites. It was a tragedy not a patriotic celebration. Only tiny Pharisaical minds might conclude otherwise.
And the Canaanites are still with us. As I have written before, they are the modern-day Lebanese. They are very closely related to the Jews. Herman Hoeh’s idea that they were West African Blacks was a political expediency and had nothing to do with archaeology, history and genetics. His views might have originated in the early American attitude that enslavement of Africans was approved by God because they were pretextually identified with Canaanites.
Scout
This verse always made me wonder if Bob Dylan knew the Armstrongs: 😂
"Across the street they've nailed the curtains, they're getting ready for the Feast.
The Phantom of the Opera, in a perfect image of a priest.
They are spoon-feeding Casanova to get him to feel more assured.
Then they'll kill him with self-confidence after poisoning him with words.
And the Phantom shouting to skinny girls, "Get out of here if you don't know"
Casanova is just being punished for going to Desolation Row!"
BB
Byker:
This verse always made me wonder if Bob Dylan was the real prophet'
Sad-eyed lady of the lowlands
Where the sad-eyed prophet says that no man comes
My warehouse eyes, my Arabian drums
Should I put them by your gate, or sad-eyed lady, should I wait?
...
The kings of Tyrus, with their convict list
Are waiting in line for their geranium kiss
And you wouldn't know it would have happened like this
But who among them really wants just to kiss you?
Scout
Not asserting to what you concluded at all. That is your freedom of choice to think that. But that's not what I was thinking.
All denominations of Christianity are subjected to human rule and humans are flawed. Jesus Christ knows this and scripture clearly records his interactions in dealing with all kinds of flawed people and how he handled them. But there was always a difference to how he handled religious leaders to ordinary people.
One of your goals on here appears to deride Sabbath Christians as non Christians to reduce them to nothing more than godless Christless idiots. For someone to call themselves a 'Sabbatarian Christian' on this blog is practically an act of defiance in the face of severe opposition.
Although I doubt you even mean half the things you write, official blog commentators on here like to write and argue for arguing sake as entertainment to themselves.
How is Sunday keeping Christanity then ? Why wasn't GCI the most blessed Church on earth ? For you never write the truth about how fractured the Christian world is as a whole. Baptists, Evangelicals and Catholics, to mention a few, all living the dream are they? Catholics don't even like the last two popes. They still adore John Paul bit like Sabbath Christians who still adore Herbert. There are fractions and squabbles amongst Baptists and an ever increasing rise in unbelief amongst office holding religious leaders of all denominations who turn against and hate their own beliefs.
Something is wrong in the Christian world across the broad and only God himself can fix it. How he will deal with it none really know.
“If God wished to reveal something of the significance of the Old Testament through His inspired apostles, would He do so through "scientific" methods that were to take twenty centuries to develop and would therefore have been totally incomprehensible to first-century readers? Might He not rather use those very associations and interpretative clues that would awaken the intended human response?..." (Moises Silva, "The New Testament Use," p.164).
And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee. 
And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. 
Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. 
No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. 
And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. 
Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered:
The word that the LORD spake to Jeremiah the prophet, how Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon should come and smite the land of Egypt.
O thou daughter dwelling in Egypt, furnish thyself to go into captivity: for Noph shall be waste and desolate without an inhabitant.
God, for comprehension, used hyperbole and “stock phraseology and fixed idioms of ancient Near Eastern military jargon” in communicating with his ancient near eastern people.
Eze 29:17
“By year twenty-seven of the exile, in twenty-two years of prophesying Ezekiel had only one realized prophecy to his credit: the fall of Jerusalem back in the seventh year of his career. The event had vindicated Ezekiel in the sight of his fellow exiles (see 33:21f., 30ff), but only for a while... As the years went by and none of his predictions materialized we may plausibly suppose the rise of new doubts about his calling. At the start of his career his fears were answered by supportative personal oracles... now again his God responded to his need for support by revealing an amendment to the unfulfilled Tyre prophecies..." (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, AB, p.617).
"A close analysis of OT prophecy reveals that many prophecies were not fulfilled either in part or in whole" (Robert Chisholm, When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic).
Looking, therefore, at a prophecy concerning Nebuchadnezzaar revealed by both Ezekiel and Jeremiah that was not “fulfilled,” at least as a conclusion using modern scientific methods:
Eze 29:8
Eze 29:9
Eze 29:10
Eze 29:11
Eze 29:12
Eze 29:13
The above prophecy is from the Lord God - note “I will”. God was going to make Egypt desolate and waste and uninhabited for forty years and scatter the Egyptians among the nations.
Jer 46:13
Jer 46:19
And so with Jeremiah, this was the word that God spoke to him.
“It need hardly be said that history reveals no such period of devastation. Nor, indeed, would anything but the most prosaic literalism justify us in looking for it. We are dealing with the language of a poet-prophet, which is naturally that of hyperbole...” (Thomas Whitelaw, Ezekiel, Pulpit Commentary, e-sword.net).
Part 2
and I WILL scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.
: “My cause is in Yahweh’s hands and my recompense lies with my God” (cf. 1 Cor 4:1-5
)” (Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC, pp.110-11).
Eze 29:12b
"Egypt's exile, though little more than a token captivity of slaves taken in battle by the Babylonians, did last from 586 [better 567] until 539 B.C. when Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Babylon, allowed captive people to return to their homelands” (Douglas Stuart, Ezekiel, Preacher’s Commentary, e-sword.net).
A token captivity expressed in universal terms.
“Jeremiah’s prophecy (ch. 46) that Nebuchadnezzar will conquer Egypt never materializes. As a result, a later scribe updated the prophecy to refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s brief raid of Egypt during the civil war between Pharaoh Amasis and Pharaoh Apries in 567 B.C.E.” (Prof.Dan’el Kahn,thetorah.com/article/nebuchadnezzar-fails-to-conquer-egypt-so-jeremiahs-prophecy-was-updated).
A “raid’ expressed in universal terms.
“It is ironic that the book of Ezekiel contains this little passage which serves as a warning that even IN EZEKIEL’S OWN DAY IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE NEED NOT ALWAYS BE A LITERAL FULFILMENT OF THE PREDICTIONS HE HAD MADE WITH HIS ARTISTIC POETIC RHETORIC. The fact that a prediction did not quickly ‘come true’ in the literal terms in which it was given did not mean that the prophetic word that embodied it lost all authenticity and relevance. This could not be the only test of whether or not a prophet was truly sent by God. It is ironic, since Ezekiel has probably suffered posthumously more than any other prophet from the labours of those determined to take some of his later visions with utter literalism and to predict on the basis of them all kinds of scenarios for ‘the end times’ — some of which have manifestly failed to materialize as their proponents predicted (though not before they had made a great deal of money and popularity out of peddling them). The fault, now as among Ezekiel’s exilic contemporaries, lies not with the prophet himself, but with those who misunderstood and abuse the prophetic word” (Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel, BST, pp.249-50).
“These twin oracles [29:17-20; 29:21], which historically mark the end of Ezekiel’s recorded ministry to the exiles reveal an all too human situation. The prophet is victim of literalists who pass on to him the resentment of returning Babylonian veterans, in the form of blame that implicitly casts doubt on the positive oracles that flowed from Ezekiel in the latter part of his ministry. Readers must be careful not to share the woodenness of Ezekiel’s contemporary critics and so distance themselves from the text itself. THE PROPHET “DOES NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DEFEND OR EXPLAIN AWAY HIS EARLIER PROPHECY; IN EFFECT HE JUST ADMITS THAT IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. The failure of a prediction in every detail thus does not appear to have been considered any great scandal ... PROPHECY [MUST HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD] IN A WAY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHO BELIEVE IT MUST INVOLVE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PREDICTIONS” (Gowan 103). An element of rhetorical exuberance was naturally involved in prophesying, the role of which was to persuade the audience of a basic theme, using both conventional and emotional language as supportive aids. Physical images may be used to convey emotional reality... Language contains a legitimate element of hyperbole, and prophetic language is entitled to this feature. For Ezekiel the criticism was evidently a depressing experience, which warranted these two messages that dwelt with the immediate complaint and also with the implication that Ezekiel’s subsequent positive ministry was untrustworthy. It is pastorally reassuring to observe that Ezekiel’s recorded oracles conclude with a divine concern for the prophet himself, so that he might share the spirit of Isa 49:4
2 Peter 3:13
“Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”
How is the experience of evil adding something of value to who I am? That is another part of the mystery of evil and one that affects us personally every moment of every day. At one time there was no evil and then there was. Something that was inherently good was misdirected and became destructive. This follows the idea widely accepted among theologians that evil is parasitic or privative in relation to good.
At one time there was a sinless state (prior to the Creation), then evil entered in (after the Creation), and in the future all will be returned to a sinless state (the New Heavens and New Earth). This is a process that applies to sentient beings who have some form and extent of free will. (Let us put Calvinism aside as the anomaly that it is.) If God can bring about a sinless state in the Eschaton, why did he not do it the Beginning (Proton).
The only thing I can deduce is that the experience of evil has a “value added” effect. Everyone who receives salvation has experienced evil, with the exception, of course, of those who are dramatically impaired. And there is no option. You cannot opt out of this. Is suffering somehow redemptive? I don’t think so. Only the sacrifice of Jesus is redemptive. Is actual participation in evil somehow better than a classroom presentation of evil? I don’t know. Jesus was perfect and yet was himself plunged into evil.
To me this is a mystery. But I am not upset by it. And, once again, to probe the depths of the mystery is to seem as if you are second-guessing God. I remember reading a book some years back by a Canadian theologian named John Stackhouse. He said something that stands out in memory: “Don’t leave in the middle of the movie.” Simple idea. But I think a necessary idea. Instead of leaving because of mystery, it’s better to stick around see what happens.
Scout
Anonymous 12:23 wrote "One of your goals on here appears to deride Sabbath Christians as non Christians to reduce them to nothing more than godless Christless idiots."
That is hardly the case. Why don't you find me an example on this blog of such derision. What I have seen are theological arguments concerning the Sabbath. If what you mean by “Sabbath Christians” is that group of people who believe that the observance of the Sabbath is a requirement for salvation then you have an issue not so much with me but with the Apostle Paul. It was Paul who said in Galatians 5:
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”
I have no problems with Christians observing the Sabbath as long as they do not contend that it is part of how they earn their salvation. I am cognizant of the Sabbath myself.
The fact there is dissent in the ranks of Christianity is a tired atheistic argument. The Christian church has been plagued by nominalism from the beginning. That does not cancel the validity of the church. We find the same internecine warfare among Armstrongists.
Scout
Part 1, 2 1:34 AM PST
You're either up early or up late, I can't figure out which. Of course, I don't know your time zone.
I agree withi what you have written. The Bible may use hyperbole and prophecies may not happen as they were described. The latter comes close to justifying HWA's failed prophecies but I don't think you intend that.
The Bible was not designed to support literalism. The Bible is literary but not literal. On the other hand, I do not think the instructions to Israel to exterminate the Canaanites occupying Palestine are somehow literary symbolism. I think real people died.
Scout
I have never encountered a Sabbath keeping Christian who declares you have to keep the Saturday Sabbath for salvation. Your labelling of people who you don't know, as God knows them, to 'Armstrongites' is not Christian at all. Broadbrush underhanded insulting of others to be less than yourself, and therefore not worth your time, nor giving any respect to, is nothing less than of the world snobbery. Beware of the snobs!
“Hyperbole is not literal, but destruction can be.”
Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet [hassire‘a, singular], among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed. (AV).
The LORD your God will spread panic among them until they all die. There will be no one left-not even those who were hiding from you. (GWT).
He will even cause panic among them and will destroy those who escape and go into hiding. (GNT).
And then the LORD your God will send terror to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you! (NLT).
The Lord your God will put panic among them, so that even those who are left, or who try to hide from you, will perish (J. G. McConville).
; Josh 24:12
. The meaning ‘hornet’ is suggested by the ancient translations, including LXX, and similar metaphors for invading armies are found in Deut 1:44
; Isa. 7:18-19
. In Exod. 23:27-28
there is a parallel with ’ema, ‘terror’, and for this reason ‘panic’ is adopted here” (J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, ApOTC, p.149).
But the LORD your God will give them over to you and throw them into great confusion, until they are destroyed. (ESV).
For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. (AV).
“I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. (NIV)..
). The same word was used in 15:16, where the topic is also Israelite’s conquest of Canaan. This “terror” is not some personification of Yahweh or the angel, but the report that Canaan will hear of Yahweh’s dealings with the Egyptians. This much is made clear in 15:14-16:
“My seminary Hebrew professor, former colleague, and friend, Al Groves, who is of blessed memory, was a wonderful, honest, and pastoral man. When dealing with the theological difficulties that arise in the course of reading the Bible, Al would say, “God lets his children tell the story”...” (Peter Enns, “God Lets His Children Tell the Story”: An Angle on God’s Violence in the Old Testament, patheos.com, July 24, 2012).
The Hornet
Dt 7:20
Dt 7:20
Dt 7:20
Dt 7:20
Dt 7:20
“20. ‘The Lord your God will put panic among them’: ‘panic’ is hassire‘a, frequently taken as hornet, here and in Exod 23:28
Dt 7:23
“The translation ‘panic' ... is supported by v.23” (J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, ApOTC, p.161).
Ex 23:23
Ex 23:27
“As the angel will go ahead of the Israelites in their journey, God says that he will send his “terror” (Hebrew ’emah) ahead of the Israelites to throw the nations into confusion (Ex 24:27
The nations will hear and tremble;
anguish will grip the people of Philistia...
terror [’emah] and dread will fall upon them.
“As a result the Canaanites will “turn their backs and run” (23:27)” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.472).
Part 2
I will send my fear [’emah] before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. 
And I will send the hornet before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.
α For mine Angel shall go before thee, (AV).
α I will send my terror before thee, (ASV). 
And I will send the hornet before thee, (AV).
And I sent the hornet before you, which drave them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites; but not with thy sword, nor with thy bow. (AV).
And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror [’emah] is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. 
For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. 
And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.
And they said unto Joshua, Truly the LORD hath delivered into our hands all the land; for even all the inhabitants of the country do faint [mug] because of us. (AV).
; Joshua 2:9-11
, 24
; 5:1
; 6:27
” (Richard S. Hess, Joshua, TOTC, p.334).
Ex 23:27
Ex 23:28
“The reference to a “hornet” in verse 28 is not likely literal. The Hebrew word (sir‘ah) occurs only three times in the Old Testament, and its meaning is uncertain. It is probably a graphic symbol of God’s defeat of the Canaanites. It, like the “terror” of the preceding verse, buckles the knees of the Canaanites and sends them scurrying for cover” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.472).
“ “Hornet” is the meaning suggested in BDB’s Hebrew and English Lexion, but this is by no means the clearly preferable translation. Durham translates the word “panic-terror,” but without explanation (Exodus, 366). Fretheim suggest “pestilence” (Exodus, 181). Holiday’s lexicon (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971]) gives the meaning “depression, discouragement” ” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, Fn.. p.472).
Ex 23:23a
Ex 23:27a
Ex 23:28a
“There are two great truths in 23;30-33: the accompanying angel (20-26), and the forerunning terror (27-33). The terror is not explicitly said to be the angel, but identification is reasonable, since the angel will bring them into the Promised Land and drive out their foes (23), and this is what the terror does too (27-28). Also the angel and the terror are both in fact the Lord himself: when the angel speaks, it is the Lord who speaks (22), and when the terror drives out the inhabitants of Canaan, it is the Lord who is driving them out” (Alec Moyter, The Message of Exodus, BST, pp.245-46).
Because of the “principle of agency” — what a person does through his agent he may be said to do himself — identification of the angel with the Lord can reasonably be deduced on the basis of NT revelation; it cannot necessarily be deduced from the OT itself.
Jos 24:12
“The identity of the hornet has been disputed. Is it (1) Egypt, (2) insects in warfare, or (3) terror? Egypt is unlikely since it is nowhere mentioned and this identification does not exist in the Bible. Insects may have been used in warfare, but their presence in this text is unlikely, since only one hornet is mentioned and there is no account of their use in Joshua or anywhere else in the Bible” (Richard S. Hess, Joshua, TOTC, p.334).
Jos 2:9
Jos 2:10
Jos 2:11
Jos 2:24
“The alternative translation of this word as “terror’ or the use of the picture of a hornet to symbolize terror seems to satisfy the descriptions of the enemies in Exodus 15:14-16
Part 3
And I sent the hornet before you, which drave them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites;
but not with thy sword [hareb], nor with thy bow. (AV).
And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword [hareb] (AV).
should be understood as ‘rhetorical negation’ also known as ‘relative negation’:
; the second line indicates the comparison)" (Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel, BST, p.291).
). The idiom does not intend to deny the statement but only to set it in a secondary place (so Frost)" (Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah, EBC, Vol. 6, p.431).
the LORD our God delivered him over to us 
and we struck him down... (AV).
Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. (AV).
)” (Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary, p.32).
Victory over Sihon
Jos 24:12a
Jos 24:12b
Nu 21:24a
It is suggested that Joshua 24:12
“In order to indicate the relative priority of one thing over another, you would affirm one and deny the other: e.g., ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hos. 6:6
“In short, the Hebrew idiom permits denial of one thing in order to emphasize another (cf. for a NT parallel Luke 14:26
Dt 2:33a
Dt 2:33b
“The two clauses of this verse represent two dimensions of the same event: the invisible, theological dimension, and the visible, mundane dimension. The second clause shows that the victory was not miraculous but involved human military action. The first clause reflects the conviction that the human action was successful because of God’s control of the events. By mentioning God’s role first, Moses implies that His action was decisive; Israel merely reaps the benefit” (Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary, p.32).
“The people of God did not sit back and observe the acts of God; they entered the battle and experienced the presence of God in their activities and commitment” (Peter C. Cragie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, p.117).
Ps 127:1
“This view of the two dimensions of human affairs is expressed by the psalmist in connection with other areas of endeavor: “Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it; unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain” (Ps 127:1
“Providing no military tactics or details, the discourse moves immediately to a theological conclusion: YHWH turned him [Sihon] over to Israel” ((Bill T. Arnold, The Book of Deuteronomy Chapters 1-11, NICOT, p.190).
You are angry and you are talking nonsense.
Armstrongists believe that the Sabbath observation is required for salvation. This is one of the reasons they must be categorized as non-Christian. You don't know this simple concept and yet declare that I don't know them. I was an Armstrongist for 30 years. Go off and do the research.
Scout
Part 1,2,3 2:51
in reference to the use of the word “plague” instead of hornets:
I think a simplification of what you have written is that the reference in the OT to hornets (used by God to chase out the Canaanites) is rather a reference to “panic”. This could be. It does not make any difference to my observation that God was willing to use a non-lethal method for ejecting the Canaanites from Palestine, whether it be a plague of hornets or an overwhelming sense of dread.
God did use an insect plague in Egypt so use of hornets is not without precedent. The Jewish Study Bible straddles the fence and states of Exodus 23:28
“Plague, better, “hornets” or “wasps” meaning either that ferocious swarms of wasps will chase the Canaanites OR that God will induce a panic or frenzy like that caused by wasps and cause the Canaanites to flee.”
I think either works. Thanks for the research.
Scout
11:18 wrote:
"I have never encountered a Sabbath keeping Christian who declares you have to keep the Saturday Sabbath for salvation. Your labelling of people who you don't know, as God knows them, to 'Armstrongites' is not Christian at all. Broadbrush underhanded insulting of others to be less than yourself, and therefore not worth your time, nor giving any respect to, is nothing less than of the world snobbery. Beware of the snobs!"
What a load of crap! Literally!
I was a member of the church for over 50 years, and Sabbath-keeping certainly WAS a requirement of salvation, just like keeping the Holy Days were.
The list of requirements in Armstrongism for salvation are long and burdensome. Not even HWA himself could ever keep them. He watched TV on the Sabbath, ate "unclean" foods, traveled on the Sabbath, and ate/drank on atonement.
My comment at 8:46 was intended for Anonymous 11:18 who stated:
"I have never encountered a Sabbath keeping Christian who declares you have to keep the Saturday Sabbath for salvation."
Scout
Scout 846/ annon 224
Since Scout is a stickler for details I thought I would chime in.
You can research forever but all would be in vain, for there is NOTHING in church literature stating sabbath keeping is required for salvation. ARMSTRONG was not that stupid!
What they did write was:
--Sabbath keeping is part of God's law
--Sin is the transgression of the law
--He that sins is a servant of sin
--to become a Christian, one must repent and turn from sin
--only the doers of the law shall be justified
--shall we continue in sin that grace shall abound?
--sinners shall not inherent the kingdom of God
Scout would argue that this circular reasoning translates into the law being required for salvation, and I'm sure it was often preached from the pulpit that way. I am not defending it for I too see problems with it. But I will say, traditional Christianity is also guilty for having its own circular reasoning.
Catholics believe one can lose his salvation for doing or NOT doing certain things. Many protestants believe the same although they would word it differently. Instead of losing salvation, they would say the person wasn't saved to begin with. Same result!!!!
Ron Dart had several sermons on the subject of the role of the law. It is NOT to give salvation, which is true for any law, even the law of Christ.
BP8 4:38
I let myself get derailed by Anonymous 12:23 who had nothing to say about theodicy and wanted to defend the keeping of the Sabbath. I should have ignored the comment but sometimes when the argument is so much in need of rational counterpoint , it is hard to let it pass.
In general, Armstrongist do not break out any particular and claim it is required for salvation. Hoeh and Meredith both wrote articles that state that the Mosaic legislation is required for salvation with the exception of the sacrifices and those laws that require execution of the transgressor. This streamlined version of the Mosaic legislation is written on the hearts of believers.
The state of salvation in Christianity has more to do with the heart than action. A sinful action does not jeopardize the Christian. A sin can stem from a misunderstanding or transient weakness. But a sinful heart, as the seat of belief, intentionality and motivations, will.
I do agree that law of Moses does not give salvation. Likewise, the Law of Christ does not give salvation. Only Christ gives salvation based on faith separate from any law. That is why making the law a requirement for salvation is heretical. The works are not an input to salvation but an output of salvation.
Scout
I know.
I still stand by my statement.
I defend those who ran a race, who you did not know, but now await the resurrection.
To boldly declare others as non Christian in a broad sweeping statement is arrogance in it's extreme. For the religious leaders in the Temple arrogantly declared Jesus himself as of the devil. But they themselves where whitewashed tombs.
I have no idea who you are but you always comment with fairness and show great wisdom. You seem to have a natural oil well of genuineness and naturally pour oil (genuine peace) on situations.
Scout 644 writes, "the state of salvation in Christianity has more to do with the heart than action".
).
Bravo Scout, an excellent simple statement and reminder of what salvation is,
" becoming " instead of "doing"! It is easy to forget this fact and revert back to the carnal mode that is exhibited in Scripture by the Pharisees (I fast twice a week), and the young rich man (what must I DO?). Armstrong kept people busy and built an empire exploiting this.
Christ's overlooked answer to this nonsense? " If thou will BE PERFECT (becoming), come and FOLLOW ME" (Matthew 19:21
I wasn't intending on taking this thread in a different direction, only to save those doing research a little time and effort, lol.
I doubt that anyone is looking at this post any longer. But I would like to add this argument by Alvin Plantinga, a Christian analytic philospher concerning theodicy:
The all-powerful, all-good God created the universe.
God has permitted evil and has a good reason for doing so.
Therefore, there is no contradiction in theism.
I would call this the "None of Your Business" Argument. It says that God has a good purpose for doing what he does even though we do not understand why. You could also call it the 'Cause Argument. My Mom and my aunts would tell some of us cousins to do something and we would ask why. Sometimes the answer was 'Cause!
But the argument does produce consistency. Armstrongism is permitted to exist because God has a good purpose for it even though we do not know what the purpose is.
Scout
Post a Comment