The problem of evil (Dr. Michael Heiser)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.พ. 2024
- Dr. Michael Heiser's (was an American Old Testament scholar and Christian author with training in ancient history, Semitic languages, and the Hebrew Bible from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Wisconsin Madison) response to the problem of evil from a different perspective.
God gave Adam and Eve freewill, as well as the elohim that existed prior to the creation of man.
*******
I don't own this material.
FAIR USE DISCLAIMER
"Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."
*******
“It is what it is because lesser beings choose wrongly” 😃
Why does it sound like someone else is speaking in the background??
Hallelujah Amen
Where is the original video in full please?
So, I missed the criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research from you. Great video, but fair use? Not trying to be adversarial here, but you could have just posted a link to his video.
Did Adam and Eve love God before the fall? Did freewill come from God? If so, then why did God command Adam to eat of every tree of the Garden but not of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Does a command come with an option? Does a subordinate have the right to choose to follow an order (command) or not especially when it is followed by a most devastating and dire warning? Does the Bible point out who it was that turned the command into an option?
God can't do evil, so He doesn't have a free will capable of sinning. Our ability to sin makes us unlike God, not like Him, so this ability has nothing to do with us being made in His image.
Free will evil used science to kill this Saved Soul. Nonetheless he is safe now and it's all part of GODS PLAN
Science continually tries to prove itself wrong, whereas religion continually tries to prove itself right.
With all the frauds and lies of evolution in the last century I'd say science is continually trying to prove the lie is true. In physics, scientists continually try to prove God doesn't exist. All of science in evolutionary biolobgy and physics is dedicated to that premise.
As a Christian, If I was continually trying to prove I'm wrong in my faith, I'd be a fool. Jesus rose from the dead. Many saw Him cruicifed and later risen. I can't try to prove what I know is true is a lie. I'd be very confused to do so.
I don't know about other religions which are of the devil, but Christianity will defend itself against sceptics. And this defense is to glorify God and allow Him to work through us to the saving of people from Hell.
Hold up. Science assumes it is right all the time.
@truthbebold4009 Wrong again...I repeat...science continually tries to prove itself wrong whereas religion continually tries to prove itself right. And, I may add, fails miserably.
They are actually very similar. Those who follow Christ know he’s the truth and their lives are the constant disproving of what they think bc God is tried and true every time. Every thing always works out/goes the way He said it will, no matter what we think or do
@huntercostello9036 Again, this only proves the arrogance of religion. The interesting thing about yours and others statement of "knowing", is that, it is never followed up with evidence.
You may be wondering who created Evil !
There is a very easy way of finding the truth.
(Isaiah 45:7)
I have heard enough of this crap argument that evil is needed for good to exist. You can make choices between two good things.
The only way anyone can judge the “perfection” of anything is by the physical evidence. Going by that criteria and evaluating the cosmos as a whole, it appears that “perfect” being didn’t utilize perfection very well in the creation of everything. And who gets credit for the ways the real world is ?? God. That’s wrong. Either god didn’t know what was being created or god didn’t care how perfect the world is. Right down to the physical properties of human beings.
Not to offend anyone, but look at the way virtually all animal life has in common. Were I to have created man in my own image I would’ve avoided giving living creatures heads that are easily separated from a body. I mean… a neck is the perfect place to easily end another creature’s life… cutting off their head.
Another anatomical “mistake” god made was placing mammal genitalia to within inches from the spot used for defecating. Can you conjure up any worse spot for giving birth ??? Another oversight on God’s part is why in the world would god create Adam or any male with nipples ?? They’re pointless. But what it does indicate is that ALL humans evolved from lower animals that at some time in the past nipples may have been an advantage to the male of the species. Who knows. But it doesn’t make sense for a “creator” to have placed nipples on males.
Is anyone grasping this? When one looks at human anatomy it’s obvious god could’ve made better choices about creation. And the fact that god didn’t should give every believer pause about “humankind being created in god’s image”. What is that supposed to mean anyway ?? Point being, it’s pretty obvious that god the designer was either a novice, or god’s Not perfect, or there is no god regardless of what weak human being might want.
Great guy. Many excellent insights. But here...he is defending against an argument no one is making. Who says "Humans are robots"? This is not a Reformed position. It is a great mystery of which he doesn't explain away saying man is not a robot. Total Depravity doesn't mean what he thinks it means...another example of a straw man. But...he has so much good to say.
Calvinists and Atheists both say that we are basically... well... robots.
@@J42337 I've never heard a Calvinist say such. I suppose you are trying to equate hard determinism atheism with Calvin's teaching. What I suspect you are missing is the mystery. God is Sovereign, (how can any Christian deny this?) and yet man is responsible. Read the first 2 chapters of Acts. Pretty clear. In the Westminster Confession it deals with it pretty clearly, God is sovereign yet not to be blamed for evil. Man is responsible. God ordains the atonement through Jesus, man is responsible for killing the God/Man. If you have ever heard a Calvinist claim we are robots, I'd love to hear you quote the person who said that. I suppose it's possible but then again it's possible for some "Christian" to say God isn't sovereign. Or any number of wrong things.
@@dannewcomb7631 With all due respect, if atheistic determinism makes people into robots so does Christian determinism. Just because the cause is different doesn’t make the effect different. If you appeal to mystery what you are saying is there is a contradiction in your system you don’t know how to solve, that is the mystery. Calvinism is a minority view of Christians historically and present day. The Orthodox Church made it a full on heresy hundreds of years ago. The Catholic Church, who adore Augustine, also deny this deterministic view. Augustine got his determinism from Manichaean ism which he used to be a part of. It is no where found in any church fathers before him and still rarely after him.
Calvinism makes God the author of evil because He is the author of everything. You can say the evil is done by beings who do what they desire but God determined what they desired. The programmer is responsible for what the non free robot does because the robot has no ability to act freely. They fulfill a program and then they end. Calvinism makes God the programmer of the evil in men’s hearts and then blames the men for having evil hearts. If God wrote the code of evil that would make him the author of that evil.
Thank the Lord that this is not true. It truly is as close as you can get to a salvation risking heresy without denying the core doctrines of Christianity. To attack the character of God in such a way under the veil of trying to raise Him up higher is so misguided and gross. God doesn’t do what you say and doesn’t want you putting Him in that place. God created free creatures that were to reflect His character to the world and we as believers are to deny temptation and freely choose to walk as He walked, to restore the Edenic ideal. Free people choosing to obey the commands of God above their own. Calvinism destroys that core story of reality and makes a mockery of it by giving nonsensical reasons for a God to want to reflect His image in people who aren’t in any way separate from His decision making faculties. Reject Calvinism, join traditional Christianity, feel the love and mercy of God full blast and deny yourself and pick up the cross.
God is sovereign. Too what degree does he exercise His sovereignty over man. Did He in His sovereign power decree that Adam and Eve were to eat of the tree. Does his sovereignty only allow some the gift to understand their sinful need of a savior. Is our God inconsistent in whether He gives men choices?
@@dannewcomb7631 starting your argument by "i have never heard a Calvinist say such" is erecting a strawman of your own, and a disingenuous one at that. Of course, no Calvinist will explicitly say that, and they don't have to. Their claims/beliefs/assumptions about "predestination" and such inevitably lead to an inference that can be summarized as "humans are essentially robots = not having free will" using modern terms.
Heiser is wrong on this. Many of God's attributes are incommunicable: Divine Simplicity, aseity, omniscience, omniscience, etc. There are several ways to demonstrate that the free will defense for theodicy is intuitive, but false.
My major problems with the free will defense are: 1. It's (free will) just never given as an explanation for evil, or anything else for that matter. It's an understandable intuitive leap. But there are explanations given for evil in the Bible, and it should be telling that free will is never one of them. 2. It doesn't explain anything. Our raw capacity to make sin and non-faith decisions (or those decisions being available to us) doesn't explain why we do, either now or in the case of Adam and Eve. 3. This is almost always framed with "we are not robots" language, which pretty much everyone agrees with. It still has to be recognized as an intuitive leap to say from that God can't make non-robots without them doing evil.
@@brianwagner781 I think the intent of the Free Will defense is to assign moral culpability to one and only one agent, namely man, and absolve God from moral culpability.
That's intuitive, and for man-to-man relationships, it is definitely correct. There are many instances in the Bible where we see that culpability follows intent and knowledge: for example, if a farmer knows that his Ox has a habit of goring people, then he is morally culpable for not properly protecting his Ox from getting out and goring people.
But I'm not convinced that moral culpability works that way when it comes to a Being who is omnipotent and omniscient. There are a number of examples in the Bible where God ordains for a person to do evil. And in those cases, it is always that person, not God, who is held morally culpable for that behavior.
@@timffoster yeah, that and justifying God's decision to make a world where so much evil will happen. Free will and evil is greater than no free will and no evil. That sort of thing.
I think your argument illustrates why we shouldn't put so much faith in an explanation that isn't provided in the Bible. It's just an understandable intuition.
Yall are trippin'! I'm not going to pretend for a second that I'm qualified to argue about this. But What Heiser says makes perfect sense to me.
@@robertpillowjr.1672 I think I get why it does. But can you point to a place in the Bible where free will is ever given as the reason for moral evil?
"Makes sense" isn't really the best basis for forming beliefs about God. Especially when he's actually revealed knowledge to us in the Bible.