Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 7 - HOW TO READ)

This series explores the nature of Scripture (specifically those aspects which many of us find uncomfortable) and what our approach to Scripture should be as a consequence. This exploration is needed because our intrinsic human biases cause us to assume that God's nature / aims / priorities / etc all line up with our modernistic worldview, which focuses on detailed accurate synergistic information. However such an approach to Scripture clashes with many of its properties. Our response tends to be to curate Scripture, or to minimize our engagement with the aspects we find difficult to explain. Instead, we should engage with all of Scripture as God designed it, and challenge our perspective on it when needed. What does it look like when we value the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture?

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read (this post)

So far I've spent a long time justifying my belief that God is more interested in the meta-cognitive goals of person-hood, expression, and relationship. Now I want to start exploring the practical aspects of reading Scripture. 

Scripture's purpose, specifically, is to be a collection of some of the individual progressive revelations of God's person-hood throughout history, which taken together He has deemed to be the most universally useful expression toward encouraging relationship with Him. It does this in an incredibly dynamic way. If we focus on cognitive information and a harmonious synthesis of theology, we can miss a lot of what the Bible has to offer toward relationship with God, and at its worst it can lead us to minimize aspects of Scripture to the point that they are almost useless to us. How should we approach Scripture keeping relationship in mind, and balancing the usefulness and limitations of cognition toward this ultimate aim? I have some general principles to share, but this is something I'd like to grow in more, so please share your own thoughts!

How to Read Scripture:

1) Immerse yourself in the passage, allowing every aspect of yourself to be impacted by the experience. We don't expect each expression of a person to be perfect and balanced - and likewise with each revelation - but they are unique and beautiful and insightful. By reading Scripture and inviting the Holy Spirit to speak through it, you are touching an aspect God, a deliberately designed expression of Himself! Never let this slip by you. 

2) Utilize flawed cognition to your relational advantage. Despite its limitations - which I have emphasized in my defense of God's relational aims - cognition is central to our approach to Scripture for obvious reasons. Firstly, Scripture is written in a language, meaning cognition has to be engaged to even start experiencing it with your other non-cognitive faculties. Secondly, 'Immersing yourself in the passage' is something that's not under much of our direct control, since all our faculties are overwhelmingly influenced by external circumstances, our subconscious, and each other. However, cognition is unique in that it is also (at least partly) consciously controlled, which gives us an avenue to steer and focus our other faculties of experience. If we are discussing how we should control our approach to Scripture, this control has to occur through our cognition. 

3) Attempt to cognitively understand what God intended for people to experience from his designed expression in Scripture. How Scripture's designed relational purpose is realized - or whether it is realized at all - varies between individuals. Our cognition needs to understand the intended experience if it is to steer our experience in the right direction. 

4) Deliberately consider multiple different experiences of God from the passage in mind. I think this is one of the most productive ways to attempt to properly experience God's expression through Scripture. These different perspectives help us break out of our worldview and so avoid subconscious worldview hijacking of our cognition, so we can consider God's intentions for the passage more clearly. But more profoundly, they help us stick to the first principle of relational experience (rather than cognitive accuracy). If we understand another person's relational experience, it allows us to experience an echo of God ourselves. In addition to the hypothetical 'universal intended experience' we're trying to understand from a passage, it's as if we were experiencing a personalized expression of God by proxy (albeit one with greater potential for error in our understanding, and with less universal benefit than Scripture itself). 

5) Start with some 'high yield' perspectives. Perhaps most useful is that of the original intended audience or of the author, since these are clearly going to be integral to God's intended experience of his expression in that passage of Scripture[1]. Also helpful to consider are the experiences of early and/or orthodox church consensus[2]. A final group of helpful perspectives are those of individual saints who you discern to be relating well to God in a holistic sense - these may be dead or living saints, famous or privately known[3]. 

6) Allow your cognition to function naturally and form a harmonized view of God as a person. Try to see God through each of the expressions you experience which you deem to be intended by God, or genuine healthy relationships. Remember you are trying to understand a person in the light of all their complex expressions. Don't make a God up who wraps perfectly around all these 'experiences' (this can never take into full consideration the dynamics of person-hood). Instead try to understand the God who expresses Himself in these ways. 

7) Don't let our modernistic worldview hijack your cognition and make an idol of it. This is an imperfect process and does not define 'relationship', though it is useful and natural.  Do not be distracted away from the aim of relationship with God.  Remember that the hypothetical 'universal intended experience' is actually going to be a spectrum of experience, just like any public expression in earthly relationships. Do not become obsessed with the difficulties of forming a harmonized view of God. Focus on God's intentions for Scripture (rather than picking 'the best' interpretation), and focus on God as a person (where Scripture springs from Him, rather than the reverse). Where cognitive perplexity exists, relate to God through this (some perplexity is a normal part of any relationship).

Its more (or less) intuitive

This approach is fairly intuitive and natural - read the passage for what it is, and consider the spectrum of legitimate ways to experience God through it (even if they contain different mixes of cognitive gaps). Despite its simplicity and intuitiveness, this approach IS difficult - because our worldview isn't happy with cognitive gaps, and because this approach requires us to put aside our preferred priorities and seek God as HE wishes to be found.[4][5]

Summary:

Reading Scripture should utilize cognition to focus the rest of our faculties and allow our whole being to experience God as He intends. At the same time we need to be vigilant not to focus excessively on our cognition, or elevate its importance above other aspects of relationship. One way to do this is to deliberately consider the spectrum of legitimate experiences of others through Scripture - including the original audiences and authors, church consensus, and individual saints. We should let our cognition form a harmonized view of God, a God who would express Himself through all these experiences. But there will always be perplexities of person-hood and relationship that our cognition cannot 'solve', and we need to be careful not to assume that this means something is 'wrong', and not to let this distract us from relationship.

• Are there any other reading / interpretation techniques that you feel are important to enhance a proper relationship with God?
• Do you agree that considering a variety of perspectives is important?
• Do you agree that considering the whole experience - not just the cognitive aspects - is important?
• When deciding which experiences are useful to consider in your interpretation of Scripture, how much attention do you pay to the cognitive aspects of that experience?
• How do you feel about accepting inevitable perplexities when it comes to forming a harmonize cognitive view of God?

Coming soon...

• Next I'll deal with some further issues people have with this approach to Scripture, specifically how it can seem to threaten traditional theological processes and the concept of 'inerrancy'.
• After that we'll explore some specific examples of progressive revelation and how a relational approach to Scripture leads ancient and modern saints to Him, but through different cognitive paths. 

Footnotes:

[1 - When attempting to understand the experience of the original audiences and authors, it can be helpful to remember how progressive revelation functions to serve relationship with Christ. Each passage was written to enhance as much as possible the revelation of Christ to the intended audience, taking into account their interpretive bias, and the historical processes God intends to drive as part of his expression to mankind. Thus this consideration can be helped a lot by an understanding of the times and cultures and language etc (which can seem daunting), but a lot of this can be gleaned from the Scripture itself. Important things to remember is that these audiences did not have subsequent revelation to balance their cognitive experience of God, that they had different priorities and worldview to us, and that they had genres of language that we aren't too familiar with in our modernistic society .]

[2 - Church 'concensus' is clearly not unanimous, and has also frequently been plagued by political and selfish motivations. However, the greater unity there is among those who seem driven by a desire to relate to the God of Scripture, the more authority this consensus has as a legitimate intented experience of God.  After all, the church - functioning this way - is the means by which we trust God to have chosen and preserved Scripture in the first place. This kind of concensus can allowing many doctrines labeled as heretical by the modern American/Western church, and can also be troubled by the influence of the current worldview (e.g. Greek thinking paved the way for modernism and tended to idolise cognition).]

[3 - The more you know a person yourself and are persuaded of there relationship with God, the less 'orthodox' their cognitive views need to be in order to be useful. Conversely, some 'orthodox' saints may have an experience of God that is less than convincing, and so may not be worth considering.]

[4 - Our modernistic mind will search for reasons to avoid worldview reform - e.g. by disregarding it as 'post-modernism'. This view is post-modern in the sense that it recognises the problems with modernism, but it is NOT postmodern in the sense of denying the reality or importance of cognition, absolutes, truth, consistency, etc. This approach relies upon the essential foundation of absolute reality and consistency in the person of God - but our experience of God should not derive all its meaning from how well we grasps all the cognitive details of God's absolute reality and consistency. The incarnation reveals how God is more than willing to 'empty himself', forgoing some aspects of His reality in order to better express others (e.g. His willingness and ability to relate to us).]

[5 - Even if we agree with this approach to Scripture, it doesn't make the difficulties go away! Our preference for cognitive information is deeply ingrained in our culture, and makes us constantly think about how this approach deals with cognition. What a shame to miss the beauty of the big picture, because we are thinking too much about how the picture is bigger than the sum of its parts and can't be contained in a cognitive description of it! What a shame to miss Jesus because we're thinking about how a person can't be described well with words alone! It can be good to understand how cognition and relationship interact - but Satan can use anything to distract us from actually relating to Jesus.]

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 6 - COPING WITH EVIL II)

This series explores the nature of Scripture (specifically those aspects which many of us find uncomfortable) and what our approach to Scripture should be as a consequence. This exploration is needed because our intrinsic human biases cause us to assume that God's nature / aims / priorities all line up with our modernistic worldview, which focuses on detailed accurate synergistic information. However such an approach to Scripture clashes with many of its properties. Our response tends to be to curate Scripture, or to minimise our engagement with the aspects we find difficult to explain. Instead we should engage with all of Scripture as God designed it, and challenge our perspective on it when needed. What does it look like when we value the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture?

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II (this post)
7. How to Read

We've discussed how Scripture suggest that God is more interested in the non-cognitive goals of personhood, expression, and relationship, and deliberately utilises a thoroughly human Bible along with cognitive 'gaps' (biases or 'errors', according to our modernistic perspective) to achieve these aims. 

Many cognitive / experiential 'gaps' can be considered normal or conducive toward relationship. One challenge to this view is that not all 'gaps' easily line up with this supposed aim of God's - some gaps can legitimately be called 'evil' even from a relational perspective. We've been discussing how our relationship copes with these gaps in the form of faith, which again is not primarily cognitive. One strategy faith uses is to wrestle with God's purposes for these gaps, and to provide potential answers which sustain our relationship through these 'evil' gaps. These answers also demonstrate that 'evil' gaps do not ultimately conflict with God's relational aims. 

This discussion has led us to analyse 'progressive revelation' (with its obvious cognitive 'deficiencies') as a specific form of 'evil', recognizing that it still specifically serves God's relational aims, and discussing how faith grapples with Scripture.

We've already covered how the these 'gaps' are required for the expression of faith, which is the most vivid display of the authenticity and health of any relationship. To round off my defence of God's relational aims, we'll explore a couple of other potential 'answers for evil' that faith can grapple with.

Full Expression

First, In a broad sense Evil allows a more complete expression of God's character. God is not merely good, He is ANTI-evil - meaning ultimate evil (real persisting gaps in the expression of God) cannot exist. This very impossibility - God's anti-evil nature - itself needs expressing, and what better way than to give evil the opportunity to assert its own existence, only to be gloriously and satisfyingly overcome by Gods goodness?{1} Sometimes this is obvious and temporally relevant (i.e. God meets our needs when we pray to Him), but other times it is more subtle and eternally focused (i.e. by some of the other purposes for evil, discussed below). 

Progressive revelation likewise allows the more full expression of God's character. The ANTI aspects of God's nature need revealing - including the faults  of the previously biased views, which requires their existence to start with. Harmonious summary statements about God are not enough - certain aspects require a full and mature dealing, which may require a partially biased expression for a time. If these biases also produce evil gaps, it is so that they can be overcome by integration into the whole goodness of God, and so that we can enjoy the full spectrum of views and perspectives on our unified God. And the unity of God's people - under a common spirit-wrought love for Christ, in varying states of cognitive awareness - is meant to demonstrate the impossibility of evil ultimately winning, even if it is given opportunity (through the existence of cognitive bias and disagreement). 

Specific Effects

Second, evil performs its own specific purposes more directly. Some events - which are required in Gods expressive narrative - require evil in order to occur, or require evil to setup the context for another expression of God's character. Examples of these kinds of evil include huge parts of Israel's story (which gives so much meaning to the rest of God's revelation in Scripture), and the murder of God's son (which was ordained before the world was even created). Another big class of specific purposes for evil, is the individual development of our characters as free agents. Some character developments REQUIRE the existence of evil.{2} Gods relational nature wants a large number of different characters in heaven, which require various patterns of mixed experience, including (temporary) evil which is ultimately overcome by God's goodness.

Progressive revelation has direct effects as well, in terms of intended messages, directing historical events, and molding specific characters. Each revelation had an intended message and intended effect, which might change with the historical context. The bias, the truth content, and the omissions all have a necessary role in accurately conveying the message and creating the intended effects. 

Summary

Even 'evil' experiential gaps in God's expression are readily assimilated by God's relational aims. Relationships persist in the form of faith, a valuable self-evident manifestation of the health of any relationship. Faith can sustain itself by grappling with some of God's purposes for evil (such as allowing alternative expressions of God's goodness), and how it fits with his relational aims. Faith can also grapple with God's purposes for the 'evils' of progressive revelation, which (like all 'evil' gaps) allow the goodness of God to take on alternative expressive forms, enhancing relationship rather than posing a challenge to God's relational aims.

• Does it feel wrong to attribute deliberate good original purposes to 'evil'? 
• Do you agree that the it is better if you are given a chance to express your relationship in faith? Does this 'purpose' for evil give you any comfort?
• Are there other purposes for evil you can think of?
• Do you think that having good 'purposes' for evil, is enough to justify its existence? Or the existence of 'gaps' within progressive revelation?

Please comment below! I need feedback to tailor my views and stay faithful to Scripture...

Coming Soon...

• Next I'll attempt to summarise how to approach Scripture, with everything we've already discussed in mind.
• After that we'll explore some specific examples of progressive revelation and how a proper approach to Scripture leads ancient and modern saints to Him, but through different cognitive paths. 
• We'll also reverse course a little, discussing some cognitive 'gaps' that WE impose on Scripture (making progressive revelation seem more full of gaps than it really is, or than ancient readers saw it).

Footnotes:

1 - Some will object that God's goodness can't require even a temporary experience of evil for it to be expressed, as this would make Him dependant on something other than Himself for full expression of His goodness. This view has several problems, one of which is that it defines evil as something that does not originate with God. The Bible's definition of evil, however, includes things that originate from God. Also, this view simplifies the concept of God's expression down to a single mode (where everyone is aiming for an identical relationship, which includes only an abstract understanding of any evil and God's victory over it). I agree that God does not require every person to experience every form of evil and His victory over it, but people will experience varying degrees of isolated goodness vs. its victory over evil in a wide spectrum. This is a beautiful thing in the end, when we consider the natural and desirable variety of relationships God desires.

2 - God can't simply create specific characters from thin air, just like he can't perform other logical contradictions. Strength, experience, maturity, and other aspects in our souls exist precisely BECAUSE of how they are formed. They can't exist in isolation of their development - that doesn't make sense, and to try and fake them would result in poor substitutes, and we would easily and quickly discover that they lack any basis.

Biblical Support for Universalism - Part 6

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 5:  A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Previously we looked at how ambiguous the Greek and Hebrew words for "forever" are in both the Old Testament and New Testament. It seems wise to interpret them as indefinite periods of time rather than strictly "forever". Doing this means that it is unnecessary to conclude that people will be in hell forever and opens up God’s potential activities in the future aions that make up eternity. What I would like to address now is various scriptural support that suggests that all people will eventually be saved. I emphasise again that this does not mean that I am suggesting people don’t go to hell, only that we have misinterpreted the length of “punishment” or “rehabilitation” within hell.

Photo retrieved from: http://jesus-photos-pictures.blogspot.co.nz/2010/11/god-holding-world-in-his-hands-photos.html

Both Calvinists and Arminianists talk about God’s heart and his desire to save all people, but don’t really go much further than that. Alternatively, Universalism emphasises God’s will and determination to save all people.

Here are some verses that emphasise God’s determined will to save all people:

Romans 5:15-19 is an amazing passage exclaiming the power and extent of Christ’s death in comparison to Adam’s sin. The wording here is extremely fascinating and seems to point towards Universalism. The passage states more than once that Adam brought death to the many, but Christ’s death brought the gift of life to the many. In Arminian and Calvinist tradition one would think that it should say "through Adam death came to the many and through Christ life to the elect few". But no, Paul illustrates that Christ’s impact is just as big and if not bigger than Adam’s impact on humanity. Isaiah 53:11 also emphasises the many and not the few that Christ will save.

1 Corinthians 15:20-26 has another direct comparison between those that are brought to death through Adam and those through Christ. Although this one is even stronger because this time it says, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”. This passage also states, “the last enemy that will be destroyed is death”. The Bible talks about the lake of fire as the second death in Revelation. Therefore, I ask, if death is destroyed then how can it survive in the greater part of humanity… for eternity? Will hell fire reign forever or will Christ rule with all things under His feet and destroy death altogether? Oh death where is your sting…

At this point, I would like to be intellectually honest and point out that the Greek word pás meaning “all”, which is often used in the New Testament, actually could mean “all”, or “all types of”. From what I found there is disagreement about what it means generally speaking and therefore people say that the context should interpret its meaning. In this context, it would not make much sense to suggest that through Adam all types of people die, and through Christ all types of people shall be made alive. As with the following verse in 2 Peter 3:9 where pás is interpreted as “everyone”… it does not make much sense to say that God is not willing that any soul should perish but that “every type” of people be saved. It appears the word “any” would directly interpret what is meant by “everyone”.

The classic verse 2 Peter 3:9 is often interpreted as an expression of emotion by many, but the Greek suggests that it is so much more than that. It says, “The Lord is not slow to fulfil His promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but wants everyone to repent”. The Greek word for “wishing” is boulomai, which actually means "to determine". HELPS Word-studies is worth quoting:

1014 /boúlomai (“resolutely plan”) is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire (“wishfulness”) behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).

[While God’s “thélō-offers” can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai (“planning”) always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.]

This word seems much stronger than what many translators have put into English. If God intends or determines that not any should perish, I ask, who could possibly thwart the determined plans of God? Unless of course God is deceiving Himself that He is able to save everyone, but He actually cannot and is grasping at the wind.

Colossians 1:19-20 is one of my favourites because it exclaims the supremacy of Christ and His mission to reconcile all things to Himself. It says that God is pleased to reconcile all things to Himself through Christ, both on earth and in heaven. Once again, here is very broad universal language seeming to include all things. Not only does it say all things but it specifies what it means by all things - and includes both heaven and earth.

On a similar note, we also have Ephesians 1:7-11. 

“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will”. 

The Greek for unite in this passage, anakephalaioó, means to “sum up” or “bring a head to”, which implies that Christ is in the business of reorganising everything in Him. I would question God allowing sin and death to reign in hell as a means of summing up everything in Him. Interesting though how at the end it says that God works everything according to the counsel (Greek is boulé = God’s resolved plan) of His will (Greek is thelo = desire), which has huge implications for verses such as 2 Peter 3:9 and many others which use stronger words than thelo. It does not sound like God is intending to fail at completing what He desires to happen.

John 12:32 is straightforward when it says that when Christ rises up He will draw all men to Himself. I assume He means women also… J

1 Timothy 4:9-11 is an extremely odd verse to read when not read from a Universalist perspective. It says that God is the Saviour of all people (there it is again), and especially of those who believe. It seems strange to me to talk about God being the Saviour of all people, but then talk about how He is the Saviour especially of those who believe. To me this sounds like it could be a grand plan of salvation that is in the process of saving all people, but has not yet saved all.

1 John 2:2 also is fascinating because he is reminding us believers that Christ died for the wider whole. In it John states that Christ’s death was not just for the propitiation of our sins but for the whole world.

Lamentations 3:31-33 is a powerful few verses talking about God’s longsuffering. It says,

“For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though He cause grief, He will have compassion according to the abundance of His steadfast love; for He does not afflict from His heart or grieve the children of men”. 

This is further evidence that God is not in the business of eternal conscious torment, but instead to reconcile all back to Him.

Acts 17 states that God determined the boundaries of the nations so that they would seek Him. Here is a different Greek word, horizō, which also means “to determine” and the passage states that the purpose of determining the nations is that they would seek Him. Once again, it says nations and not the elect. Verses such as Luke 11:9-13 say that if we seek we will find, and therefore illuminates the potential that God determined all nations would seek Him.

It is interesting that God says that He does not take delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11 & 18:32). Alternatively God desires and commands that all men everywhere come to repentance (Ezekiel 33:11, Acts 17:30).

Last, but not least, comes an amazing chapter from Paul - Romans 11. Some of you may be surprised this contains evidence for Universalism, but on the contrary it is full of it. In the beginning, Paul talks about how God has reserved a remnant of Israel for Himself and these select few are ones that follow Him. In v7 Paul calls them the elect, and refers to the non-elect as the “others”. Paul refers to how God caused these non-elect to stumble and fail to see. However, in v11 Paul asks, “Have they stumbled that they should fall?” He goes on to answer his own question. “By no means,” he says, but that through their trespass salvation shall come to the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy. It would not make much sense for Paul to be talking about the elect stumbling and falling. What Paul seems to be saying is that the non-elect or non-chosen have stumbled, but will not fall. Paul says this is because of a grand plan to bring in the Gentiles also. The point of this is that Paul includes the non-elect into at least a position for potential salvation. Paul gets firmer later in the chapter. He says:

"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all."

Here Paul expresses God’s ultimate grand plan, that through a process of experiencing sin and disobedience everyone can experience mercy and reconciliation with God - the Jew, the Gentile, the elect, the non-elect… everyone. Paul finishes with an open-ended exclamation about how wondrous and unsearchable are God’s ways… let him speak for himself:

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and how unscrutable His ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor? Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?" For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen." 

The final verse completes the evidence provided in this part of the series. There are many more concepts and verses in support of Universalism, but these scriptures stood out the most as providing clear examples. All things are from God, through God and to God, and I would suggest that sometime in the future aions, all things includes all people.

Conclusion:

We have seen how the Bible has many passages suggesting that all people will be saved. It suggests it by the language its uses such as “all”. It suggests it through God’s determining language used to speak about saving all people. It suggests it by direct comparisons between the many who have sinned through Adam and the many who have life through Christ. It suggests it through the salvation of the non-elect and ultimate mercy shown to all people. Last but not least, it suggests it through the all-encompassing power and extent of God’s control and grasp of all things. 

Next, I plan write a post that seeks to philosophically pull the idea of Universalism into a systematic theology. I welcome any thoughts and comments from people who may agree or disagree with something I have said. We are all a work in progress and hopefully we all seek Truth.

Next

Part 7: A SystematicUnderstanding of Universalism

A Biblical Universalism - Part 5

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 5: A Biblical Universalism 
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Introduction

At the beginning of this series, I mentioned trying to reconcile the disparities of two dominant theologies in Christianity - Arminianism and Calvinism - but with little success. This led me down a rather different path to what I had expected. I wanted to know what could be strong Biblically, and hold the logical prowess of Calvinism at the same time as keeping to the Arminian values of a God who has good will towards all men. For me, there were not many options, and I supposed that I must resolve myself to accept paradox and essentially give up. That is, until it crossed my mind to look into “Universalism” - basically the belief that all people will be reconciled with God. 

Photo retrieved from http://gdwm.org/2012/04/reconcile-with-one-another-2/

I had never previously looked into Universalism because I had the idea that it was an obscure, unbiblical belief that people held simply because they wanted to. I thought it was one of those beliefs that tickled people’s ears (2 Timothy 4:3) and nothing more. However on the contrary, after some research, I found that there is evidence that it was a belief widely held by the early church. There is also evidence of Universalism being taught by theological seminaries in the early church, and not only that, but it is debated whether it was declared a heresy. You can find some more information here - (scroll to the end and there is a tidy summary of this book). I would like to find a more recent assessment of the records of Universalism in the early church, though it is still thought provoking. 


I still think that some of the thoughts around Universalism are potentially unbiblical or illogical, especially the idea that all roads lead (in their own right) to God, even roads apparently going in opposite directions. However, what I did find were groups dedicated to scripture such as the “Evangelical Universalists”.

Evangelical Universalism seems to be a belief based on a dedication to scripture. Even though there are various sub groups under this “banner”, it was their way of looking at scripture that caused me to view scripture from a new perspective. I took off my long held Arminian glasses and tried to look at scriptures differently to how I had always read them. Within Universalism there are various points of view and with caution I use the term “Universalism” because of the stigma that it holds. I merely use it as a reference to believing that all people will be saved and reconciled with God. From a Universalist point of view, the only major difference to modern mainstream Christianity is that it anticipates the reconciliation of all people before God at some point in the future.

Basic Framework

To believe that all things are reconciled to God does not mean that the core framework of Christianity is changed. Like Calvinism and Arminianism, my understanding of Universalism believes the core fundamentals of mainstream Christianity and holds to nearly all of the common characteristics of the Christian faith, including:

- God is all-powerful, all knowing, and all loving (and I am sure there are many other characteristics, but these are key).

- God created the universe as He desired it to be.

- Humankind is sinful and is in need of redemption.

- God used the Israelites to bring about his redemption plan for the world. Jesus Christ the Son of God then lived, died and rose again to make atonement for the sins of all humankind.

- Some people will believe in Christ for salvation in this current world, and some will not. Those who put their trust and faith in Christ will be resurrected to life and those who do not, will not be.

- There is a “heaven” and a “hell”. Some people will go to one and some to the other.

So what is the difference between Universalism and mainstream Christianity? The difference is that Universalism posits that all people will eventually be reconciled to God, or in other words, people will not necessarily be in hell forever.

Those ambiguous words

Photo retrieved from http://www.writeawriting.com/academic-writing/literary-criticism/

One of the key areas of confusion for people is around the word “forever”. People read “forever” and instantly think (as I did) that its meaning is clear. However, it is not that simple. Take the Hebrew word for "forever" - olam. In Jonah chapter 2, the prophet is praying in the belly of the fish, and in his prayer he used the word olam to speak of the time he spent in the “pit” (supposedly the belly of the whale or the depths of the sea). God rescued him from this pit by causing the whale to spit him out. Clearly, olam did not mean the “forever” that we normally think of. There are three ways that this could be interpreted to make sense for the use of this word. One is that Jonah was speaking figuratively and taking artistic licence. Secondly, that Jonah, being Jewish, had a completely different understanding of that word than what has been translated down to us in English. Thirdly, Jonah was in this “pit” conditionally, based on his repentance or unrepentance. In other words, Jonah could have potentially been in the belly for “forever” - as long as he was unrepentant. Jonah was not continuously unrepentant and was therefore released. It is interesting that in this passage the use of the word olam seems ambiguous and brings to light the dangers of interpreting English words at face value.

Let us go to the Greek word for forever - aion, which is commonly used in the New Testament. Revelation 14:11 and Matthew 25:46 talk about the “forever” or aion punishment of people. Interestingly, aion is a word that is even more ambiguous than olam. Strong’s provides us with the meaning of aion. Two words are used in those verses - one a noun and the other the adjective derived from the noun. Strong’s concordance states that the noun aion means an age or ages long rather than “forever”. Even the adjective aionious (which is shortly translated “forever”) does not focus on the future per se but on the quality of the age it relates to (according to HELPS Word Studies). The Greek for “forever” or “everlasting” when considering the root word meaning of aion, actually seems to mean an indefinite long period of time with connection to its context. The word is used widely throughout the Bible. As I have generally researched out there, there is much debate about the meaning of the word, which in itself implies ambiguity and requires caution. For example, aion has been interpreted to mean life, world, old, age or forever. Ultimately, aion is not conclusive about its meaning. It would be more helpful to interpret it more as an indefinite period of time, letting the context interpret the word.

Feel free to check out this great resource for the Greek and Hebrew translations as well as commentaries - Bible Hub

Also here is a collection of quotes from scholars that seem to support the notion that aion does not necessarily mean forever but an indefinite period of time - Definition of forever

The ambiguity of aion should throw up warning signs. It suggests that mainstream Christianity potentially has assumed a reality based on theological “group think” passed down through the ages. Some may say that aion has to mean “forever” because it is also used regarding the righteous having “eternal” life. Yes, this is a valid point – however, it is not based on any understanding of the word itself but on a presumed theological worldview. Just because the meaning of the word threatens our current understanding of our time spent in heaven, for example, does not mean that we reject the meaning of the word. If the word means more or less an indefinite period of time, it may be that even the righteous will not live forever. However, there is no real reason to consider that potential reality because being indefinite, it could mean that we do live forever. God seems to desire an ongoing relationship with people, and there is no reason (that we know of) for Him to cut that relationship short. Either way, the word relates to a quality of time and needs to be read with reference to the current context.

Even if aion meant forever literally, there is no reason to think that it could not be interpreted like olam was by Jonah. “Forever” in hell could mean a condition upon continued dissonance with God. I note that there is no verse that I know of that speaks directly about people “getting out of hell” (please share if you do know), but there is much Biblical evidence that suggests that people will, as we shall see in the next post.

Conclusion

As we have discussed, reconciling all people to God does not necessarily mean rejecting the notion of a hell-like existence, but merely asserts that God will be successful in reconciling all people with Himself at some time in the current/future aion/s. There is much discussion out there about the words assumed to mean “forever” in the English. On closer observation, these words have multiple meanings and are interpreted in multiple ways. These interpretations depend on the contexts they find themselves in and the predisposed theological doctrines of the reader. It would be helpful to not be dogmatic about our preconceived realities, but accept that truth may actually look different to what we have always thought.      

Next...

Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 5 - COPING WITH EVIL I)

So far we've discussed that God uses cognitive biases (which many of us, with out modernistic worldview, would label 'errors') in his progressive revelation as he works toward his ultimate aim of relationship with us. Relationships include inevitable and healthy ‘gaps’ and ‘excesses’  of experience (and cognition). But some of the gaps God allows go beyond this to create 'evil effects' of limiting our experience of God BEYOND these normal and healthy experiences of relationship. In this post I want to talk about how our relationship copes with such messiness. And we'll start to think about why God allows gaps and cognitive 'errors' that he knows will have negative effects.

Love becomes Faith

In the face of these gaps of experience, our relationship takes a form known as faith. We go on seeking and living out the relationship, even while we are temporarily deprived of the experience of the relationship{1,2}. Faith has all the usual characteristics of a relationship. And as a relationship it needs a basis, which include all forms of experience (e.g. Scripture communication, the Holy Spirit's inner witness, The human character of Jesus, our experience of God through other people and events, reason and science, etc). It is not necessarily about any particular accurate cognitive view of the person we're relating to, but it nevertheless engages our whole being (including the process of cognition), and all experiences of the person (including cognitive understanding) will strengthen the relationship. Faith then uses the grounds it has, to bridge the relational gaps we are faced with, persisting when the relational experience is impaired. Faith thus simultaneously co-exists with both the grounds of the relationship AND the ongoing doubt and uncertainty. 

There are multiple ways to describe how faith uses its existing relational strength to bridge gaps. It can remember God's universal goodness expression which must pervade even the 'evil' we are facing (treating 'evil' as ultimately a matter of temporal perspective). It can grapple more intimately with what God's good purposes for these gaps might be. Specific answers can even be an experience of God which subsequently strengthens the relationship and faith. Faith can also remember that God’s ultimate solution to evil is an actual change in reality, not just in our minds - and so faith can work concretely to oppose evil, attempting to be the means by which God expresses Himself in these gaps. Faith doesn’t necessarily consciously engage in all these methods – it is a relationship, and so it will express itself in unique strengths and weaknesses. We can tend to react to some legitimate expressions of faith (within us or within others) as if they are actually opposed to faith, and squelch them in favour of our preferred expressions of faith. ‘Submitting to God’s will in suffering’, ‘questioning God’, and ‘fighting suffering’ may sometimes spring from a lack of faith (in which case they need redeeming by a right relationship with God), but often they can simply the unbalanced form a healthy faith naturally takes in the face of evil. We need to encourage our faith to express itself in all these ways in order for the relationship to flourish maximally in the face of evil{3,4}.

'Questioning' and working concretely against the 'gaps' created by the complexities of Scripture can likewise be an expression of faith, just like how faith deals with evil. And we can squelch faith (in ourselves or others) by squelching particular modes of its expression. It is common practice to focus on techniques and strategies that distance us from the reality and weight of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture, making it easier for us to dismiss them without engaging in other full flourishing-faith dealings (e.g. emphasising the harmony of Scripture, and engaging in rhetoric which belittles claims to the complexity of Scripture). These uncomfortable aspects of scripture are real and weighty and deserve a proper dealing{5}. 

God's purposes for Evil

So if faith grapples intimately with the specific good purposes God has for allowing 'evil gaps', what kinds of answers can it come up with? The first purpose to think about, is that evil allows relationships to take the form of faith. This is important because Faith (when understood as above) is the most undeniable demonstration of a relationship possible. Faith demonstrates the authenticity and health of a love relationship because the relationship it is based on persists even if the desired experiences are not there. Our responses to gaps reveal where our heart really lies - the degree of distress at gaps reveals the value of what is now lacking, and the degree of relational resilience DESPITE these gaps reveals the strength of relationship{6}. 

Progressive revelation allows for the demonstration of faith by leaving us with cognitive questions and challenges, with grey zones and apparent conflicts. How we navigate these based on our relationship to the person of Jesus, and not based on a commitment to a set of rigid interpretations of particular aspects of revelation, reveals our faith.

I’ve run out of room for this post, so the other two purposes for evil will have to wait for next post (allowing the full varied expression of God, and directly causing specific historical or character development effects). These are also important for faith to consider as it wrestles with God's purposes for evil and progressive revelation.

Summary

Faith is the form a relationship with God takes when there are experiential gaps in that relationship ('evil'), including the difficult aspects of progressive revelation. A healthy faith will deal with these things in multiple ways - one of which is to wrestle with God's purposes for evil and provide potential answers. One answer is that evil provides opportunity for relationships to take the form of faith, which is important to God.

What do you think of this relational definition of faith? Does it fit with Scripture?

How do you think faith ought to respond to evil and difficult aspects of Scripture / revelation? What do you think of the concept of 'questioning God' in a positive way, as opposed to the Devil's way?

Do you agree with that one purpose for evil is to allow the expression of faith? 

How do you think our faith is meant to interact with God's secret will when it comes to actively opposing 'evil'?

Coming Soon...

• Next post I'll discuss the other two major purposes for evil and progressive revelation. 
• After that I've got a couple of other interesting properties of progressive revelation to talk about, including our modernistic OVER-estimation of the bias that exists in progressive revelation. 
• Then I can finally summarise how I think God actually wants us to approach Scripture, how to practically use it faithfully in our relationship with God while still valuing those aspects we've been discussing that can seem uncomfortable and confusing! And then we can explore some practical implications.

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I (this post)
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read

Footnotes:

1 - This definition of faith fits well with Scripture. It explains why faith is the 'substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' - it IS the manifestation of a relationship that has real substance, but is nevertheless 'hoped for' and 'not seen'. It explains why God must first call people with experience before faith can arise. It explains why many of the qualities of faith in God (including exclusive rewards like grave and salvation) are also ascribed to individual components of this relationship (like love, humility, wisdom, obedience). It explains why sin (NOT living in a love relationship with God) is naturally opposed to faith, and why faith results in sanctification. It explains why faith is a constant integral part of our relationship with God here on earth, but disappears in heaven (by way of graduation to a form without ‘evil’ experiential gaps). It explains why faithful saints can still powerfully express strong doubts and wrestle with God.

2 - This description of faith still encompasses the more specific 'faith' we can have in particular promises or blessings. Technically according to Scripture we should not 'have faith for’ any particular blessing, but we can have faith in God’s goodness and faithfulness to His promises. This alters our hope / assurance / expectation / confidence regarding specific blessings - they can exist on a spectrum from possible to very likely to absolutely certain, depending on the context and God’s revelation on the matter.

3 - Faith which works to concretely oppose evil may seem at odds with a faith which submits to God's purposes in evil. But this is not necessarily true. Firstly, faith must express itself because it is relational - even if it cognitively understands that God has purposes for evil, our desire for the ultimate solution God promises (a changed reality in the new heaven and earth) MUST express itself in working toward this. Building on this, one of God’s purposes for evil IS to allow faith to express itself in this way - so God's purpose for evil may well include its defeat by the very faith it encourages. God may make it clear to us if He has other ongoing purposes for evil that require its ongoing existence – but many times, God wants both the demonstration of our faith AND the ongoing existence of that evil, in which case He keeps simultaneously encouraging our faith and thwarting faith’s efforts to defeat the evil.

4 - Also worth noting is that these abstract / concrete reactions of faith toward gaps, are also reactions our relationship can have on behalf of others. Our relationship with God is not self-centred, but God-centred - and as such, we seek ongoing experiences for ourselves AND for others. When others relationships are taking the form of faith and wrestling with gaps, we will bear their burdens and help them wrestle in abstract and concrete ways with these gaps.

5 - Some worry that wrestling with and questioning God's revelation is a lack of faith because this is what the devil tried to get Adam and Eve to do – but their ‘bad’ questioning was aimed at pushing the boundaries of God's revelation as far as possible in order to satisfy their own curiosity and independence and desires. Faith’s aim is to pursue a relationship with God. Some also worry about concretely working to oppose the 'evil' of the uncomfortable complexities of progressive revelation - as if this implies a deficiency in God's expression Himself. Faith views it instead as a designed opportunity to exercise itself - obviously valuing God's chosen expression, but seeking a more desirable relational state without as many 'gaps'. It utilises 'secular' disciplines (such as science, archeology, linguistics, history, logic and philosophy) to do so. All our efforts - as with our efforts to oppose generic 'evil' - are sincere but flawed. We rely on God to either work alongside us with His power, or to clarify our limits (as He has done by banning tampering with his revelation), or to simultaneously encourage and thwart our ongoing efforts.

6 - Obviously this is highly contextual - sometimes faith might be only mildly distressed at financial strife, because what ultimately matters is the relationship with God, which is persisting despite this 'gap', and is probably being experienced in a myriad of other ways. This same faith might be more distressed by more direct reflections of the relationship (e.g. besetting sin, a difficult ethical problem, or a lack of access to Scripture or fellowship). Or the financial hardship may become so pressing that our human minds simply cannot focus to appreciate the other more direct expressions of God, so that the immediate problem BECOMES the most direct relational expression of God that is possible in the circumstances - in this case, although the relationship continues to persist in the form of faith, there will obviously be a greater degree of distress.

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 4 - MORALITY & EVIL)

So far we've discussed the impact of our (extra-Biblical) worldview on our approach to Scripture. We've used progressive revelation as a practice engagement with the tricky complexities of honest Scriptural interpretation, and being willing to challenge our worldview. We've explored the nature of relationships, and discovered the cognition and communication fall short of defining 'relationship' because of their very nature, and not just because we humans can only handle them imperfectly. In addition, it seems as if God - technically capable of using 'perfect' communication and cognition - seems to have deliberately utilised bias in these things in His pursuit of what really matters to Him - a relationship of love.

Morality

A discussion of morality flows naturally from our discussion of communication, because it functions very similarly. Morality refers to the pattern of our behaviour. Like communication, it is inherently cognitive - we consciously decide what to do, and so it is a window into another person's cognition, but also suffers similar interpretation inaccuracies as communication. And just like communication and cognition, morality finds its true purpose in relationship. It is meant to be person-based, not abstract. We are meant to want to be like Christ and to please Christ, based on our flawed cognitive understanding of Him through our relationship. 

Because cognition cannot reach a static full encapsulation of a person, our morality will never be able to fully encapsulate them either. For this reason, some argue that we are meant to disengage our morality from cognition, and just follow the rules God has set down without question or interpretation, because this is the only reliable way to reflect God. I don't think this is the case, because the only way morality can reflect anything, is through people's interpretation of it - and they interpret it by trying to see through to the person that produces it. We reflect God by being a person that people see God in, and by behaving in a way that springs forth from this person. This cannot occur if our morality is disengaged from our cognition - it actually makes the reflection of God's character less accessible, not more accessible. Besides, the very nature of relationships and people means that things like morality and cognition could never capture a person, even if we disregard the link between morality and cognition. Relationships are meant to be dynamic processes that engage with the other person, and so a static cognition and a static morality cannot fully capture this. 

In other words, you cannot legislate the kind of morality God is after through fixed laws. They could never be nuanced enough, and there is always the possibility of life situations bringing together multiple conflicting values and unique considerations for the relationship which could NEVER be exhaustively described. No doubt God has a preferred way to behave in each situation, but we can only know this if we know God through relationship. So instead of prescribed living, there has always been a need for prioritisation, flexibility, and pragmatism BASED upon the right living relationship with God. I'm not advocating a liberal lifestyle - the relationship I'm advocating includes a desire to submit to God, and also a recognition of the complexity of applying God's values to real life situations. 

But God still legislated morality - if this was not for 'prescribed personal morality', then what was it for? We can argue for some specific purposes behind the OT law e.g. Societal coherence, which was difficult to maintain in a largely 'religious' society where God was never-the-less rarely relationally known, and where cognitive understanding of God was incomplete. But a big reason - the one that applies to ongoing legislation even in the NT - ties back to the purpose of communication. God wants us to see a prioritised understanding of His cognition THROUGH the commandments, and then base our morality on the relationship, which will include submission to our cognitive understanding of Him. Our morality will often look 'prescribed', but the different emphasis allows for deviations that please God when situations arise that aren't covered by the legislation with enough contextual relational nuance. 

Because morality is cognitive, it will change with progressive revelation and an evolving cognitive understanding of God. It needs to be emphasised that God does not want us to take the burden upon ourselves to guess / determine the 'next phase' of morality and progressive revelation. Its also worth mentioning here that morality (and to a lesser extent, communication) DOES have non-cognitive influences, which could potentially reflect non-cognitive aspects of the relationship. These are, however, much less precisely expressed and are readily overwhelmed by cognitive influences.

You can see that morality behaves much like communication and cognition - dim but important reflections of the underlying important spiritual love relationship. The intrinsic biases of morality must also be deliberately designed by God as they are natural consequences of deliberately designed cognitive biases. And just like we don't need to properly cognitively understand the God we love, we also don't need to legalistically and un-critically 'submit' to any particular legislation from God in order for the love to be real - but we DO need to engage in the process of submission. 

Evil 'Gaps' in the Relationship

I've talked a lot about what a relationship intuitively means to us, and about how our modernistic mindset can cause us to wrongly perceive many 'normal healthy' aspects as imperfections. But we all know that there ARE real cognitive deviations and gaps in our relationship with God, things that should not be considered healthy. And often it can sure seem as if its the 'healthy aspects' of normal relationships that become the culprits. Using our example of progressive revelation, it is often the intrinsic bias in communication and cognition that leads to problems in our relationship with God - and yet we've discussed them as natural and healthy, and something God has deliberately designed. What is it that makes some 'imperfections' normal and healthy, and others problematic? What is God's purpose behind allowing 'gaps' in the experience of Him through relationship, when He knows they will often cause problems? If modernism is wrong and many gaps are actually healthy and good, can we find another way to talk about the reality of bad gaps, ones that are real deviations from God's ideal relationship?

I think we can :) Lets start with some definitions - these are entirely my own definitions, which I think are supported by Scripture, but they're open to debate in the comment section! 'Good' and 'Evil' are terms which describe the quality of the experience of God through relationship. God is intrinsically 'good', and everything else is 'good' to the degree that it brings about the experience of God. 'Evil' is any lack of 'good' i.e. any gaps in the experience of God's goodness. This makes sense from a more Jewish perspective as well, where 'good' and 'evil' refer to something close to 'function' and 'dysfunction'. If God's fundamental aim is for us to experience Him in a relationship of love, anything which fulfils this function (i.e. our experience of God's character through His expression) is 'good', while anything that does NOT fulfil this function is 'evil'. Evil is intimately linked to sin, because sin harms our experience of God through relationship. Because these things are tied to relationship, you can see that 'good' does NOT refer to an attainable 'full' end outcome, but rather to an ideal uninhibited experience of a process (the ongoing relationship). Even from an eternal perspective, the 'good' all things work toward is an ideal ongoing relationship with God. Likewise 'evil' refers to the inability to have this ideal uninhibited experience of the process of relationship.

Note that both of these terms are dependent on your perspective. From an eternal perspective, we know that ALL things work together for 'good' i.e. are functioning (ultimately) to enhance our experience of God through relationship, even if it is 'evil' from a temporal perspective. And this makes sense, since ultimately all things are in some way an expression of God and Christ, even if you think He is merely 'permitting' their existence. God says that He Himself performs 'evil', where the experience of God in relationship is clouded or confused in a temporal sense - and yet he also says that all His actions are 'good' in an eternal sense. Also, both of these definitions are dependent on our interpreted experience of God from various perspectives, NOT on how well God is actually expressing Himself (I'm sure He is never actually limited in the expression of Himself, even temporally). This is why some 'normal' aspects to relationships, like incomplete cognitive understandings and varied and incomplete expressions of God, can be perceived as 'evil' when occurring in specific contexts. Its not these healthy normal aspects that are the culprit per-se, but the entire context has led to an impaired experience of God, which means the whole situation can rightly be called 'evil'. I believe 'evil' will not exist in heaven, but this is not because I think relationships will fundamentally change - I still think God will express Himself in varied and incomplete ways, and that our cognitive understanding of God will be incomplete and growing. Evil ceases to exist in heaven, because God will express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will experience clearly (in a temporal sense). In this life, 'evil' exists because God chooses to express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will NOT interpret clearly, even though they ultimately work toward enhanced experience of relationship.

Scriptural 'gaps'

Its obvious at this point that Progressive Revelation ties into our discussion of 'evil'. From many perspectives it enhances our relational experience of God, and is clearly 'good'. But from some perspectives progressive revelation can also be called 'evil'. You've probably felt this already yourself, when considering the implication that God has deliberately introduced bias into our cognitive understanding AND into our morality . As I've discussed earlier, much cognitive bias is a normal part of healthy relationships, but in some contexts it can also function as an 'inhibition' of our experience of God through relationship, especially when we can sense the spirit-wrought ache in our hearts for a more accurate cognitive understanding. It is thus sometimes a temporal 'evil' designed by God as part of the 'good' of progressive revelation. The 'good' of progressive revelation becomes more obvious as the revelation accumulates to produce a more accurate picture, and as we learn things from God that would not make as much relational sense if not for the previous 'unbalanced' cognition, and as we realise the limited role cognition and communication can play in relationship anyway. We should experience these unbalanced views of God as part of the ongoing expression of our relational God - simultaneously acknowledging the 'evil' this can encourage / allow from our temporal perspective AND the 'good' from other perspectives.

Summary

Reality is not as idealistic as I've been suggesting in the series so far. 'Evil' refers to NON-healthy gaps in our experience of God through relationship. But its not a simple division between gaps which are 'evil', and gaps which are normal and 'good' (i.e. the nature of relationships and cognition and morality). These descriptions depend on your perspective, and since there are usually multiple appropriate perspectives, there is usually a mix of recognising 'good' and 'evil' in these gaps. And some apparently 'evil' aspects may in other contexts be considered normal and 'good' aspects to healthy relationships, and continue to exist in some form in heaven. Importantly, all forms of 'evil' are ultimately 'good' and serve to enhance our ultimate experience of God, because permitting their existence is still itself an expression of God, and He is ultimately good (which is why He works all things work together for good). Progressive revelation demonstrates this nicely, as this variously biased revelation - with all its 'problems' - is still 'God-breathed' and good and trustworthy as part of the expression of His character. 

Do you agree that morality should be relationship-based, and thus more flexible / pragmatic than mere legislation? 

Do you agree with my relational-experiential definition of 'evil' and 'good'? 

What do you think of the assertion that 'evil' is ultimately good (from an eternal perspective), and an expression of God? 

Would life or Scriptural interpretation be easier / better if things could be definitively  divided into 'good' and 'evil' categories, instead of being both from different perspectives?

Coming Soon...

• Next I'll explore how relationships deal with the 'evil' gaps we've just discussed - through 'faith'. This will open up some more possibilities to discuss, regarding what God is doing by deliberately creating / allowing these gaps (especially those we find in Scripture).  
• After that, I will have (almost) finished my defence of the bias God has created within Scripture :) And I can work toward positively addressing how God wants us to approach His Scriptures, given its divine inspiration, purpose, and 'gaps' / biases. 
• Then we'll  explore this in more detail over some of the phases of progressive revelation. 
• And then onto the practical implications of a  proper vs improper approach to Scripture.

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil (this post)
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read