False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[PaulThomson]

GW is Truth/Logos/Word, which fallible folks can learn sufficiently for salvation, but not perfectly.
The main sources of Truth are creation/(supernatural) nature (Gen. 1:3, John 1:1-3, Rom. 1:20)
and inspired Scriptures such as what was just cited, whether gleaned via sufficiently accurate understanding
of Hebrew and Greek, or via sufficiently accurate understanding of sufficiently accurate translations.
We folks walk by fallible faith; perfect sight/proof may be attained when we are translated to heaven.

Then why do so many fallible learners, who have no interest in understanding rhw original texts in the original languages, argue for their understanding of scripture as though they have the definitely right doctrine and the alternative views are definitely wrong, based on fallible translations they are relying upon? Why do you think the all-wise God gave His revelation in a form that is so readily misunderstood in so many places?

 

[GWH]

Then why do so many fallible learners, who have no interest in understanding rhw original texts in the original languages, argue for their understanding of scripture as though they have the definitely right doctrine and the alternative views are definitely wrong, based on fallible translations they are relying upon? Why do you think the all-wise God gave His revelation in a form that is so readily misunderstood in so many places?

Fallible learners should not claim inerrant certainty, and humility is appropriate even for y'all who know Hebrew and Greek.

God gives His revelation in both H&G and translations of such.

It can be misunderstood, but it can be understood well enough to be saved by a child of the age of accountability.

Even if the extant Bible were perfect/dictated by God, finite/sinful souls would not be able to have absolute certainty.
We all walk by faith, not proof or papal infallibility.

 

[PaulThomson]

Fallible learners should not claim inerrant certainty, and humility is appropriate even for y'all who know Hebrew and Greek.

God gives His revelation in both H&G and translations of such.

It can be misunderstood, but it can be understood well enough to be saved by a child of the age of accountability.

Even if the extant Bible were perfect/dictated by God, finite/sinful souls would not be able to have absolute certainty.
We all walk by faith, not proof or papal infallibility.

My own view is that God is looking for relationship with us, not our obedience to a set of clear rules. Relationship is developed initially through communication, sharing with others from who we are and what we have experienced and possess. In that sharing, if we are aiming for a stronger deeper relationship, we thank and praise one another for some of what has been shared, and we initially avoid contention over disagreements and perceived sleights. As this cord of positive connection thickens, we are then able to question and discuss respectfully and lovingly the areas in which we hold opposing views and responses, and have perhaps misunderstood the other person’s words and actions.

By giving us communication with which, intellectually and emotionally, we partly agree and partly disagree, and we are left free to choose parts to act upon and defer action on parts we are doubtful about, God is giving us opportunities to choose to develop a positive relationship with Him through focusing first on finding the areas of commonality, or to major
on the areas off disagreement and offence, and begin our relationship as adversaries. The ambiguity of scripture forces us to discuss His word with Him, to clarify its meaning.

How would we feel if someone we appreciated and with whom we wanted to develop a great friendship took the things we communicated to them, and instead of consulting them as to their meaning, we went to other people and asked them what they thought we meant, and how they should respond, and then did that? And when we responded to that, they took that response to others and soughjt their interpretation, and acted on that? Would we be happy with the way they were getting to know us? Wouldn’t we rather they just came and talked with and spent time with us instead?

If God had given us a clear instruction manual, we would be forming a relationship with the manual, and would likely feel no need to consult with and spend time with the Person behind the manual. And we would likely be quite ingracious to those who did not simply follow the clear instructions. Since we are all muddling our way through, we should be a lot more patient with one another over areas of diagreement. And we should be a lot more interested in hearing what others have discovered about Him.

 

[PaulThomson]

My own view is that God is looking for relationship with us, not our obedience to a set of clear rules. Relationship is developed initially through communication, sharing with others from who we are and what we have experienced and possess. In that sharing, if we are aiming for a stronger deeper relationship, we thank and praise one another for some of what has been shared, and we initially avoid contention over disagreements and perceived sleights. As this cord of positive connection thickens, we are then able to question and discuss respectfully and lovingly the areas in which we hold opposing views and responses, and have perhaps misunderstood the other person’s words and actions.

By giving us communication with which, intellectually and emotionally, we partly agree and partly disagree, and we are left free to choose parts to act upon and defer action on parts we are doubtful about, God is giving us opportunities to choose to develop a positive relationship with Him through focusing first on finding the areas of commonality, or to major
on the areas off disagreement and offence, and begin our relationship as adversaries. The ambiguity of scripture forces us to discuss His word with Him, to clarify its meaning.

How would we feel if someone we appreciated and with whom we wanted to develop a great friendship took the things we communicated to them, and instead of consulting them as to their meaning, we went to other people and asked them what they thought we meant, and how they should respond, and then did that? And when we responded to that, they took that response to others and soughjt their interpretation, and acted on that? Would we be happy with the way they were getting to know us? Wouldn’t we rather they just came and talked with and spent time with us instead?

If God had given us a clear instruction manual, we would be forming a relationship with the manual, and would likely feel no need to consult with and spend time with the Person behind the manual. And we would likely be quite ingracious to those who did not simply follow the clear instructions. Since we are all muddling our way through, we should be a lot more patient with one another over areas of diagreement. And we should be a lot more interested in hearing what others have discovered about Him.

Growing communion with others leads to cooperation in projects and activities on which we mutually agree and of which we appreciate the value. This cooperative activity gives us even greater insights into one another. Out knowing of one another is not just propositional: a catalogue of truth claims about God. It becomes also perspectival: we can see God as others see him, and we can see others and situations as God sees them. It becomes procedural: we learn how to do things in new ways, in God's way rather than the human way. And it becomes participatory: we grow in understanding how to work with God and others to get things done. Thus the relationship continues to deepen, widen, lengthen and ascend.

 

[Seeker47]

Your positions make perfect sense if God holds our same human values. I can only pray He does not.

I believe there is one absolute and immutable truth in the universe. That truth must exist or your statements fall apart.

Communion may indeed lead to cooperation as you propose, but only if both parties hold common values. Absent common values cooperation is impossible and never happens. God provides the starting point of those values. Abandon those and you have a fallen earth.

 

[rewriter]

I can fully agree that there is one immutable, absolute truth available, but I also recognize that both psychiatry and quantum physics point out that we humans LIE to ourselves and render ourselves incapable of fully recognizing the truth. Thus, out of love for God and trust in what He has told us, I refuse to look at just one source, but at every source He says He has made available to get as close to the truth as possible. Back what you claim up with scripture is fine, so long as you properly understand what scripture says, and to be as certain as possible that I understand scripture, I trust scripture when it tells me I can also use the universe as a whole to help learn.

I have learned to present what appears to be the full gospel message without scripture. The Bible does not clearly distinguish between "general" and "special" revelations, that is a human distinction.

 

[GWH]

My own view is that God is looking for relationship with us, not our obedience to a set of clear rules. Relationship is developed initially through communication, sharing with others from who we are and what we have experienced and possess. In that sharing, if we are aiming for a stronger deeper relationship, we thank and praise one another for some of what has been shared, and we initially avoid contention over disagreements and perceived sleights. As this cord of positive connection thickens, we are then able to question and discuss respectfully and lovingly the areas in which we hold opposing views and responses, and have perhaps misunderstood the other person’s words and actions.

By giving us communication with which, intellectually and emotionally, we partly agree and partly disagree, and we are left free to choose parts to act upon and defer action on parts we are doubtful about, God is giving us opportunities to choose to develop a positive relationship with Him through focusing first on finding the areas of commonality, or to major
on the areas off disagreement and offence, and begin our relationship as adversaries. The ambiguity of scripture forces us to discuss His word with Him, to clarify its meaning.

How would we feel if someone we appreciated and with whom we wanted to develop a great friendship took the things we communicated to them, and instead of consulting them as to their meaning, we went to other people and asked them what they thought we meant, and how they should respond, and then did that? And when we responded to that, they took that response to others and soughjt their interpretation, and acted on that? Would we be happy with the way they were getting to know us? Wouldn’t we rather they just came and talked with and spent time with us instead?

If God had given us a clear instruction manual, we would be forming a relationship with the manual, and would likely feel no need to consult with and spend time with the Person behind the manual. And we would likely be quite ingracious to those who did not simply follow the clear instructions. Since we are all muddling our way through, we should be a lot more patient with one another over areas of diagreement. And we should be a lot more interested in hearing what others have discovered about Him.

Yes, God desires relationship/fellowship with His spiritual children (1John 1:1-4).
Yes, fellowship is via communication via Word-words.
Yes, God does not zap/program people, which would make them robots,
but instead He actualizes MFW via what is called "distanciation" (= "ambiguity").
The relationship with humanity has a 4,000 year plus long history, which climaxed with Christ.
GRFS has always been simple enough for a morally accountable child to understand as the Golden Rule.
And yes, repentance for breaking the GR and patience/forgiveness toward fellow GR-breakers is part of the GR.

 

[PaulThomson]

GW is Truth/Logos/Word, which fallible folks can learn sufficiently for salvation, but not perfectly.
The main sources of Truth are creation/(supernatural) nature (Gen. 1:3, John 1:1-3, Rom. 1:20)
and inspired Scriptures such as what was just cited, whether gleaned via sufficiently accurate understanding
of Hebrew and Greek, or via sufficiently accurate understanding of sufficiently accurate translations.
We folks walk by fallible faith; perfect sight/proof may be attained when we are translated to heaven.

If we were interested in developing a deep relationship with someone we hope will become a good friend, but they speak a different language from us, most of us would make an effort to gain at least some degree of familiarity with the language of that person. We would not rely entirely on translators to interpret the meaning of our words to them and their words to us. Besides, translators hve been known to edit what someone says to pretend they said something either more palatable, or what they believe might be more palatable to the audience. I personally do not rely on any translation of the Received Text. They all make mistakes. If someone challenges what the translation I happen to be citing is asserting, my first response is to consult the Received Text, to see what the Greek and Hebrew actually say. I often end up gaining new insights from doing so.

 

[GWH]

If we were interested in developing a deep relationship with someone we hope will become a good friend, but they speak a different language from us, most of us would make an effort to gain at least some degree of familiarity with the language of that person. We would not rely entirely on translators to interpret the meaning of our words to them and their words to us. Besides, translators hve been known to edit what someone says to pretend they said something either more palatable, or what they believe might be more palatable to the audience. I personally do not rely on any translation of the Received Text. They all make mistakes. If someone challenges what the translation I happen to be citing is asserting, my first response is to consult the Received Text, to see what the Greek and Hebrew actually say. I often end up gaining new insights from doing so.

Yes, as you say, all of us humans may make mistakes, including those who say what the Greek and Hebrew mean,
so insights, yes, but inerrancy, no, thus humility, always.

 

[rewriter]

My own view is that God is looking for relationship with us, not our obedience to a set of clear rules. Relationship is developed initially through communication, sharing with others from who we are and what we have experienced and possess. In that sharing, if we are aiming for a stronger deeper relationship, we thank and praise one another for some of what has been shared, and we initially avoid contention over disagreements and perceived sleights. As this cord of positive connection thickens, we are then able to question and discuss respectfully and lovingly the areas in which we hold opposing views and responses, and have perhaps misunderstood the other person’s words and actions.

By giving us communication with which, intellectually and emotionally, we partly agree and partly disagree, and we are left free to choose parts to act upon and defer action on parts we are doubtful about, God is giving us opportunities to choose to develop a positive relationship with Him through focusing first on finding the areas of commonality, or to major
on the areas off disagreement and offence, and begin our relationship as adversaries. The ambiguity of scripture forces us to discuss His word with Him, to clarify its meaning.

How would we feel if someone we appreciated and with whom we wanted to develop a great friendship took the things we communicated to them, and instead of consulting them as to their meaning, we went to other people and asked them what they thought we meant, and how they should respond, and then did that? And when we responded to that, they took that response to others and soughjt their interpretation, and acted on that? Would we be happy with the way they were getting to know us? Wouldn’t we rather they just came and talked with and spent time with us instead?

If God had given us a clear instruction manual, we would be forming a relationship with the manual, and would likely feel no need to consult with and spend time with the Person behind the manual. And we would likely be quite ingracious to those who did not simply follow the clear instructions. Since we are all muddling our way through, we should be a lot more patient with one another over areas of diagreement. And we should be a lot more interested in hearing what others have discovered about Him.

Not only is there a potential problem with loving the instruction manual rather than the individual there is the problem of the instruction manual having passed through numerous hands, an unknown number of edits by persons unknown, numerous editions and no clear statement as to which version is correct. Then add in that the instruction manual references various things the individual has made and considers worthy, do we want to look at those also as opposed to merely paying attention to what someone else says the manual claims? Personally, I would want to associate with the individual, look at what they made with them and rely on the manual as a last resort.

 

[GWH]

Not only is there a potential problem with loving the instruction manual rather than the individual there is the problem of the instruction manual having passed through numerous hands, an unknown number of edits by persons unknown, numerous editions and no clear statement as to which version is correct. Then add in that the instruction manual references various things the individual has made and considers worthy, do we want to look at those also as opposed to merely paying attention to what someone else says the manual claims? Personally, I would want to associate with the individual, look at what they made with them and rely on the manual as a last resort.

Well, the Bible is both my first and last resort, and it instructs us to test everything and keep the good, so that is what I do,
walking by faith that it contains sufficient truth for learning how to be saved, because there is no more credible source/manual.

 

[rewriter]

Well, the Bible is both my first and last resort, and it instructs us to test everything and keep the good, so that is what I do,
walking by faith that it contains sufficient truth for learning how to be saved, because there is no more credible source/manual.

And what do you use to confirm that you are properly understanding the Bible?

 

[TruthDefender]

The Scriptures of Christ are all one perfectly unified word, even as the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Therefore, every Scripture must be taught in context of all other Scripture, not just from verse to verse within a chapter of Scripture. To rightly teach any Scripture, we must do so in context of all Scripture taken together as one complete word.

If we separate one Scripture from other Scriptures, not just verse to verse within a certain chapter, but also from other chapters and books, then we are falsely teaching Scripture out of context. The end result with be contradicting the unity of Scripture written for doctrine and prophecy of God.

This is commonly done by unbelievers seeking fault with Scripture, to say God's words are not inerrant.

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

From this one verse alone, anyone could teach that the God of the Bible is the creator of evil things, and so is an evil creator doing evil things. However taken in context of all Scripture together:

Jas 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Here we see that God cannot do evil, because He can't even be tempted with evil. Nor does He tempt anyone to do evil. Therefore, Is 45:7 must be read and taught in context of James 1:13, that the God of the Bible cannot be an evil Creator creating and doing evil. Such as the pagan God Moloch.

Such false accusations against the God of the Bible, however is also done by believers, in order to teach their own false doctrine.

Eph{2:8}
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

By this verse alone, anyone could say that salvation is only by faith through faith, to the exclusion of repentance and works.

By that rule of exclusion from other Scriptures:

Gal 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,

By this verse alone, anyone could say that justification is by faith of Jesus Christ alone, to the exclusion of repentance and works and grace.

Titus{3:3}
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

And by this verse alone, anyone can say that salvation is by the mercy of God alone, to the exclusion of repentance and works and grace and faith.

However, taken in context of all Scripture together, not only unifies the gospel of Jesus Christ into one principle doctrine, but also does away with the ad absurdum of isolating one Scripture to the exclusion of others:

Mark{1:15}
The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Heb {6:1}
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:

Repentance is principally necessary for salvation by grace through faith toward God.

James{2:14}
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?...Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James{2:21}
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

And works are necessary to be saved and justified by grace through faith of Jesus Christ.

And so, when we read any Scripture, we must always include all Scripture pertaining to the same thing, in order to know the unified principle gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Anyone teaching falsely from any certain Scripture, but excluding other Scripture pertaining to it, is advocating for a gospel and doctrine of another Christ, not the Jesus Christ of Scriptures.

Gal 1:6
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Wow, what version are you using?

I only looked up Isaiah, God doesn’t create evil. (?) Darkness nor calamity is NOT evil!

“I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭45‬:‭7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[TruthDefender]

The Scriptures of Christ are all one perfectly unified word, even as the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Therefore, every Scripture must be taught in context of all other Scripture, not just from verse to verse within a chapter of Scripture. To rightly teach any Scripture, we must do so in context of all Scripture taken together as one complete word.

If we separate one Scripture from other Scriptures, not just verse to verse within a certain chapter, but also from other chapters and books, then we are falsely teaching Scripture out of context. The end result with be contradicting the unity of Scripture written for doctrine and prophecy of God.

This is commonly done by unbelievers seeking fault with Scripture, to say God's words are not inerrant.

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

From this one verse alone, anyone could teach that the God of the Bible is the creator of evil things, and so is an evil creator doing evil things. However taken in context of all Scripture together:

Jas 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Here we see that God cannot do evil, because He can't even be tempted with evil. Nor does He tempt anyone to do evil. Therefore, Is 45:7 must be read and taught in context of James 1:13, that the God of the Bible cannot be an evil Creator creating and doing evil. Such as the pagan God Moloch.

Such false accusations against the God of the Bible, however is also done by believers, in order to teach their own false doctrine.

Eph{2:8}
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

By this verse alone, anyone could say that salvation is only by faith through faith, to the exclusion of repentance and works.

By that rule of exclusion from other Scriptures:

Gal 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,

By this verse alone, anyone could say that justification is by faith of Jesus Christ alone, to the exclusion of repentance and works and grace.

Titus{3:3}
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

And by this verse alone, anyone can say that salvation is by the mercy of God alone, to the exclusion of repentance and works and grace and faith.

However, taken in context of all Scripture together, not only unifies the gospel of Jesus Christ into one principle doctrine, but also does away with the ad absurdum of isolating one Scripture to the exclusion of others:

Mark{1:15}
The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Heb {6:1}
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:

Repentance is principally necessary for salvation by grace through faith toward God.

James{2:14}
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?...Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James{2:21}
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

And works are necessary to be saved and justified by grace through faith of Jesus Christ.

And so, when we read any Scripture, we must always include all Scripture pertaining to the same thing, in order to know the unified principle gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Anyone teaching falsely from any certain Scripture, but excluding other Scripture pertaining to it, is advocating for a gospel and doctrine of another Christ, not the Jesus Christ of Scriptures.

Gal 1:6
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

For the most part reading in context is always wise, however, there are many verses that can be taken alone, too.

 

[Seeker47]

Wow, what version are you using?

I only looked up Isaiah, God doesn’t create evil. (?) Darkness nor calamity is NOT evil!

“I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭45‬:‭7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

The word translated “create” here is the Hebrew word bārā' which also carries the concept of shaping. There are multiple examples where YHWH takes evil human actions and “shapes” those acts to further His salvation goals. One quick example is his use of King Nebuchadnezzar who attacked Judah for evil reasons of personal power and gain. God allowed the Kings plans to succeed for a while but still protected His people from the full consequences of exile. Eventually Nebuchadnezzar was overthrown and the Jews returned from exile with a greater understanding of God’s righteousness and mercy. There are plenty of other examples; need I mention Samson or David or Judas?

 

[TruthDefender]

The word translated “create” here is the Hebrew word bārā' which also carries the concept of shaping. There are multiple examples where YHWH takes evil human actions and “shapes” those acts to further His salvation goals. One quick example is his use of King Nebuchadnezzar who attacked Judah for evil reasons of personal power and gain. God allowed the Kings plans to succeed for a while but still protected His people from the full consequences of exile. Eventually Nebuchadnezzar was overthrown and the Jews returned from exile with a greater understanding of God’s righteousness and mercy. There are plenty of other examples; need I mention Samson or David or Judas?

I believe your reasoning is way off!!
God can send calamity, but evil is not from Him. He can punish a nation, but people bring evil upon themselves.

 

[GWH]

And what do you use to confirm that you are properly understanding the Bible?

Common sense, because I do not believe a loving God is tricky or hides His requirement for salvation.
It's not rocket science, but rather simple enough for me to understand at the age of eight!

 

[rewriter]

Common sense, because I do not believe a loving God is tricky or hides His requirement for salvation.
It's not rocket science, but rather simple enough for me to understand at the age of eight!

Most 8-year-olds still have a lot of mistakes to make and very limited understanding about most subjects. Heck, I know some 80-year-olds, still mentally competent, who admit to not being able to understand many Bible passages, or as some have said, not wanting to understand them in the way the Greek implies, because if they do, it changes everything. So glad you were such a "wunderkint", able to understand things adults struggle with at such a tender age.

Personally, I find that if Romans 1:20 is true, I need to know a lot more about the universe than is easily discerned from the Bible. It might be there, but it also seems well hidden and easily misunderstood.,

 

[TruthDefender]

The word translated “create” here is the Hebrew word bārā' which also carries the concept of shaping. There are multiple examples where YHWH takes evil human actions and “shapes” those acts to further His salvation goals. One quick example is his use of King Nebuchadnezzar who attacked Judah for evil reasons of personal power and gain. God allowed the Kings plans to succeed for a while but still protected His people from the full consequences of exile. Eventually Nebuchadnezzar was overthrown and the Jews returned from exile with a greater understanding of God’s righteousness and mercy. There are plenty of other examples; need I mention Samson or David or Judas?

God uses nations to do His bidding, as He does with people. After all, He is the Potter, we are the clay.
Who are we to tell the Potter anything?

 

[Seeker47]

I believe your reasoning is way off!!
God can send calamity, but evil is not from Him. He can punish a nation, but people bring evil upon themselves.

I respect your opinion but will go just a bit further. As I read in the bible, we are personally held accountable for our behavior, and we are corporately held responsible for the actions of our nation. We can be righteous yet still suffer earthly consequences for the sins of the nation. Humanists won't like this idea much.