Re: what does 'good' mean?

For the record I need to modify comments at the end of my previous post. I had written:

"The creation as it now exists allows humans to choose. If evil and rebellion were not an integral part of it, they would not have this option.... Otherwise the rebellion would take place in heaven."

These statements are incompatible. If evil and rebellion were not part of the creation, humans could still choose to reject God--as some of the angels did, but of such a sin they would be unable to repent. That is, if one is in heaven, in a state of intimate knowledge of God and still chooses to reject him, it's the unforgivable sin. Under such conditions God has no resources for changing such a rebel's mind. That's why the fallen angels can't go back.

Immersed as they are by stages in an environment containing both good and evil, humans can come to know and practice evil without committing the sin against the Spirit. When people sin, God stays out of the picture ("hides his face") and thereby allows them to return to him later.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
  To: asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; drsyme@cablespeed.com<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>
  Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 10:09 PM
  Subject: Re: what does 'good' mean?

  Jack Syme wrote:

  "...So, even though good and perfect are not the same. God's
  creation is exceedingly (good, excellent) and free of
  evil. I am not sure what usefulness splitting the
  difference between what "good" means in Genesis 1 and what
  is perfect. The important issue is at least twofold, 1) is there some
  defect in creation, even before man was on the scene, that
  is in need of "perfection" and some yet future
  reconciliation? And 2) what effects did Adam and Eve and
  the fall have on the creation?..."

  To say God is good, or the creation is good, or Jesus is sinless, is not to say much. Why? God sets the standards. God is good by definition, and Jesus is sinless because he himself decides what sin is. He can curse all the fig trees he wants and still be sinless. There are no external standards.

  For God to say the creation is good is for him to say he likes how it turned out. Aristotle might not like it, and Voltaire might not, and I might not, but we're all irrelevant. If God says it's good, it's good in his opinion, and no one else's matters. The creation could be full of evil, but if that were the way God wanted it, he could still call it good on the grounds that it would have been what he'd wanted.

  So I concede that the creation is what it is because God wanted it to be what it is. Further, since I trust God, if he says the creation is good, I'll agree that it meets his objectives.

  But what were God's objectives? At least one of God's objectives was to come into personal relationship with his creation. His creative efforts have brought persons into existence, and he wants to establish relationships with those persons.

  There's a difference between establishing a relationship and enjoying the fulfillment of that relationship. The creation as it was formed and now exists was for the purpose of establishing the relationships. A creation that is in some way different will host the fulfillment. Now there are trials and tribulations. Then there will be great joy. These are biblical concepts.

  A while ago I asserted that the fall into sin occurred at the big bang. This may have been stretching things; but what I meant was that the creation as we know it was intended to host evil and rebellion from the start.

  The human persons that God wanted to create emerged with more or less unbroken continuity from pre-humans, and they from non-anthropoid ancestors. (This is what I believe.) So human sin was inevitable: When man became morally accountable, he carried along the baggage of his animal ancestors and thus, like other animals, could not escape putting his own interests from time to time above those of his fellows.

  But that's the negative side of the story. The positive side is that man came to be conscious of himself in relationship to higher powers around him. To make the long story short, he was able to see God in the context of his own ego and all false gods, and he was able to choose.

  The creation as it now exists allows humans to choose. If evil and rebellion were not an integral part of it, they would not have this option. God obviously wanted those who chose him to have a good idea of what the alternatives were, so they could enter the relationship with understanding based on experience.

  Otherwise the rebellion would take place in heaven.

  Don

  ----- Original Message -----
    From: drsyme@cablespeed.com<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>
    To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:20 AM
    Subject: what does 'good' mean?

      Throughout Genesis 1 the word translated as good is
    "towb", which has usages such as:

    1) good, pleasant, agreeable
        a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
        b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
        c) good, excellent (of its kind)
        d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
        e) good, appropriate, becoming
        f) better (comparative)
        g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man's sensuous nature)
        h) good understanding (of man's intellectual nature)
        i) good, kind, benign
        j) good, right (ethical)

    2) a good thing, benefit, welfare
        a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
        b) good things (collective)
        c) good, benefit
        d) moral good

    3) welfare, benefit, good things
        a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
        b) good things (collective)
        c) bounty

    It is also the same word used in Genesis 2:9 describing
    the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (So good is the
    opposite of evil)

    In Genesis 1:31 God calls all of his creation "very good".
     The word translated as very is "m@'od<mailto:m@'od>" whose uses
    include:

    1) exceedingly, much

    2) might, force, abundance

    3) welfare, benefit, good things
        a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
        b) good things (collective)
        c) bounty

    So, even though good and perfect are not the same. God's
    creation is exceedingly (good, excellent) and free of
    evil. I am not sure what usefulness splitting the
    difference between what "good" means in Genesis 1 and what
    is perfect.

    The important issue is at least twofold, 1) is there some
    defect in creation, even before man was on the scene, that
    is in need of "perfection" and some yet future
    reconciliation? And 2) what effects did Adam and Eve and
    the fall have on the creation?

    Like I have said before, I dont see anywhere in the
    Genesis account that indicates creation (at least the
    physical portion of creation) being defective ("broken").
    I am not expecting a future perfected Earth.

    I think that the effect of the fall on creation was
    limited to man's relationship with creation.

    But, evil exists. Satan, and demons are part of the
    created order, so there is evil in creation in that sense.
     In Colossians 1:20 when it talks about God reconciling
    all things, I think it is talking about this part of the
    created order, not the physical creation.

    There is clearly moral evil in abundance as a result of
    the Fall. And ultimately, this will also be reconciled
    through Christ, and in some sense has already been.
    ("Already, Not Yet").
Received on Sun Jan 16 00:34:53 2005