Jim Fowler's Theodicy

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In another thread, Rick posted this theodicy published by Jim Fowler on christinyou.net in his FAQ (PDF).

2nd Quote: Regarding The Origin of Evil

The origin of evil and its introduction into God’s created world has always been difficult to explain. Do you have a theological solution to this difficulty?

The origin and introduction of evil or sin into the perfect universe that the Righteous God created has been an issue of much debate throughout the history of Christian thought. The discussion of such is known as 'theodicy' in philosophical and theological circles.

In terms of trying to explain the origin of evil from a biblical perspective, with rather limited and debatable details, the question narrows down to a discussion of the origin of the Evil One. How did the Adversary, the devil, Satan, come into being?

Evil is contrary to the character of God – the antithesis of God’s character. If (since) God is the creator of all things, how did evil character enter into the cosmic arena?

God is the essential cause of all things (as the Creator), but He is not the culpable cause of evil that is contrary to His character. Since He generates all things ek autos (out of Himself), and in consistency with Himself – His character – we cannot blame evil on God! It is impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18); it is impossible for God to be the source of evil. Directly anyway!

But indirectly God did create derivative creatures with freedom of choice, and the first category of such creatures, that we know of, were the angelic beings – the angels. God Self‐limited Himself (as only God could do) to create angelic beings with a freedom of choice that could choose to derive all from Him – or refuse to do so. But what alternative derivative source was there?

That is the 'ultimate incongruity' – or what Karl Barth called the 'impossible possibility.'

Utilizing the historical narratives of Isa. 14:12‐15 and Ezek. 28:11‐19 with their apparent double entendres, along with the imagery of the Apocalypse (Rev. 12:3‐9), we surmise that Lucifer, the Light‐bearer, the Son of the Dawn, apparently had some form of leadership in the angelic hierarchy. Using his creaturely freedom of choice, he chose to reject the derivation and bearing of God’s Light. Where did that rejective rebellion come from? We do not know – it’s an ultimate incongruity.

But a LIE was born – 'I will be like the Most High God' (Isa. 14:14) – 'I will be an ‘independent self’; I will function ek autos (out of myself) as a self‐for‐self. How could that be? It’s an ultimate incongruity!

Did the angelic choice of Lucifer create the Adversary, Satan by his own self‐choice? It does not seem possible. But by some means the Evil One came into being – the necessary fixed negative of God’s positive – the enemy, the opponent, the adversary – forever cursed and irredeemable. NOT co‐equal with God; not a god of good vs. a god of evil, forever in a dualistic standoff. NOT merely the absence and privation of God’s good, for explanation by absence amounts to nothing.
God and Satan. There is an essential constitutional difference between them, for one is the Creator and the other a creature; One has intrinsic Being, while the other has extrinsic being. They were polarized in an essential character dichotomy of good and evil.

Satan remains a derivative creature of God. He cannot be an 'independent self,' self‐generating character. Apparently Satan takes that which is of God; His goodness, righteousness, loving character, and twists such around backwards into its negative antithesis. He short‐circuits the character of God in grotesque distortion. In Acts 13:10 Paul calls Elymas a 'son of the devil,' who 'makes crooked the straight ways of God.'

I don’t know that this is an airtight solution to the problem of evil in the world, but it is the most biblical, theological & philosophical tenable explanation that I have ever heard."

Origin of Evil
Theodicy
'God is the essential
cause of all things,
but He is not the
blameworthy or culpable
cause of evil –
that is contrary
to His character.'

It is the best answer I have ever heard also, biblically speaking.

Rick

This theodicy is exceedingly weak and unconvincing for many reasons. It begins with the wrong question and contains a lot of error and speculation. The idea of "Satan" is almost entirely absent from the OT, and it is introduced in the NT as if it were common knowledge amongst all the readers. And when we ask where the NT writers got their knowledge of the devil, we immediately find that they got some of it from the common pagan mythology of the first century. Case in point: Peter imported the Greek mythology of Tartarus directly from pagan sources:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

What is "Tartarus?" The Bible does not say. That word is not used anywhere else in Scripture. Therefore, the only way to know what Peter meant is to look to Greek mythology, where we learn that Tartarus is the place where Zeus imprisoned the Titans who rebelled against him. Zeus put the Titans in chains in Tartarus exactly as the NT says God put the "fallen angels" in chains in Tartarus! And they also got it from the pagan book of Enoch, as we know from Jude 1:9. It is interesting that Jude also speaks of fallen angels "chained in darkness" just like Peter.

Therefore, to begin with this kind of extra-biblical mythology as the very foundation of a Christian theodicy seems to me to be a grave error. And worse, he then speculates about how historical narratives (Isa 14, Eze 28), which have absolutely nothing to do with Satan in context, can be used to invent doctrines that are not explicitly stated anywhere in Scripture. And to further compound his many errors, he assumes that there is a fallen angel named "Lucifier" which is not mentioned anywhere in the authentic Bible. That name was introduced when the King James translators erroneously copied the Latin "lucifer" (light bearer = name of the planet Venus) as if it were the name of Satan. That name does not exist in the Greek or Hebrew Bible. Is it not absurd to think that there really is a fallen angel whose name came into existence only when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Latin?

The fundamental problem with this theodicy is that it begins with false assumptions, speculations, and the wrong question about the "origin of the Evil One." This is an error because the Bible teaches essentially nothing on this topic. Therefore, Fowler has founded his theodicy on the shifting sands of speculation.

His first move is mere assertion that assumes his conclusion. I agree that everything is "ek autou" - of himself (of God). How then can Fowler assert that everything is "ek autou" except evil? Even when God himself is quoted as saying "I create evil?" He merely asserts "we cannot blame God" - and mere assertion does not an argument make.

If all things are "ek theou" (come from God) how could those things choose to not be "ek theou?" I had no choice in the matter of my creation, and neither do I have any choice about being "ek theou." Sure, I can live as if I were not "ek theou" but that does not change the fact that I am. And besides that, the question of the reality of "free choice" itself is a debate amongst Christians that is contrary to the Reformers teachings (read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and Calvin's Institutes), so using this as the foundation of the theodicy is another weak point.

But for all it's errors, it presents one point with perfect clarity. Within the Christian dogma, being an "independent self" is seen as the ultimate crime worthy of eternal punishment! And that, to me, seems to represent the traditional teaching of orthodox Christianity, and so rather than justifying God, it condemns Christianity as a humanly constructed cult to control the minds of the sheep. Think about how the doctrine of hell was used for 2000 years to threaten people who failed to obey the Catholic hierarchy! If any doctrine is obviously made up by corrupt men to control other people, I would say it is the doctrine of hell.

Like I said at the beginning, this theodicy began with the wrong question. The question is not "What is the origin of evil?". The correct question is "Why does God allow evil in the world?". There is only answer: evil is needed to achieve a greater good. Theologians then spend their lives explaining how that works. Indeed, we can see this as the underlying point of Fowler's theodicy since he implicitly assumed that "free choice" is the "greater good" that justified the existence of evil. Unfortunately, his presentation was cluttered with a lot of error, speculation, and false assumption.

Richard

[heb13-13]

In another thread, Rick posted this theodicy published by Jim Fowler on christinyou.net in his FAQ (PDF).


This theodicy is exceedingly weak and unconvincing for many reasons. It begins with the wrong question and contains a lot of error and speculation. The idea of "Satan" is almost entirely absent from the OT, and it is introduced in the NT as if it were common knowledge amongst all the readers. And when we ask where the NT writers got their knowledge of the devil, we immediately find that they got some of it from the common pagan mythology of the first century. Case in point: Peter imported the Greek mythology of Tartarus directly from pagan sources:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

What is "Tartarus?" The Bible does not say. That word is not used anywhere else in Scripture. Therefore, the only way to know what Peter meant is to look to Greek mythology, where we learn that Tartarus is the place where Zeus imprisoned the Titans who rebelled against him. Zeus put the Titans in chains in Tartarus exactly as the NT says God put the "fallen angels" in chains in Tartarus! And they also got it from the pagan book of Enoch, as we know from Jude 1:9. It is interesting that Jude also speaks of fallen angels "chained in darkness" just like Peter.

Therefore, to begin with this kind of extra-biblical mythology as the very foundation of a Christian theodicy seems to me to be a grave error. And worse, he then speculates about how historical narratives (Isa 14, Eze 28), which have absolutely nothing to do with Satan in context, can be used to invent doctrines that are not explicitly stated anywhere in Scripture. And to further compound his many errors, he assumes that there is a fallen angel named "Lucifier" which is not mentioned anywhere in the authentic Bible. That name was introduced when the King James translators erroneously copied the Latin "lucifer" (light bearer = name of the planet Venus) as if it were the name of Satan. That name does not exist in the Greek or Hebrew Bible. Is it not absurd to think that there really is a fallen angel whose name came into existence only when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Latin?

The fundamental problem with this theodicy is that it begins with false assumptions, speculations, and the wrong question about the "origin of the Evil One." This is an error because the Bible teaches essentially nothing on this topic. Therefore, Fowler has founded his theodicy on the shifting sands of speculation.

His first move is mere assertion that assumes his conclusion. I agree that everything is "ek autou" - of himself (of God). How then can Fowler assert that everything is "ek autou" except evil? Even when God himself is quoted as saying "I create evil?" He merely asserts "we cannot blame God" - and mere assertion does not an argument make.

If all things are "ek theou" (come from God) how could those things choose to not be "ek theou?" I had no choice in the matter of my creation, and neither do I have any choice about being "ek theou." Sure, I can live as if I were not "ek theou" but that does not change the fact that I am. And besides that, the question of the reality of "free choice" itself is a debate amongst Christians that is contrary to the Reformers teachings (read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and Calvin's Institutes), so using this as the foundation of the theodicy is another weak point.

But for all it's errors, it presents one point with perfect clarity. Within the Christian dogma, being an "independent self" is seen as the ultimate crime worthy of eternal punishment! And that, to me, seems to represent the traditional teaching of orthodox Christianity, and so rather than justifying God, it condemns Christianity as a humanly constructed cult to control the minds of the sheep. Think about how the doctrine of hell was used for 2000 years to threaten people who failed to obey the Catholic hierarchy! If any doctrine is obviously made up by corrupt men to control other people, I would say it is the doctrine of hell.

Like I said at the beginning, this theodicy began with the wrong question. The question is not "What is the origin of evil?". The correct question is "Why does God allow evil in the world?". There is only answer: evil is needed to achieve a greater good. Theologians then spend their lives explaining how that works. Indeed, we can see this as the underlying point of Fowler's theodicy since he implicitly assumed that "free choice" is the "greater good" that justified the existence of evil. Unfortunately, his presentation was cluttered with a lot of error, speculation, and false assumption.

Richard

Hi Richard,

That might have been my title (The Origin of Evil) Jim has several more docs on Theodicy and what I posted earlier that you reference is just a small portion from him in a FAQs doc. I am making my way slowly through his other more comprehensive docs on Theodicy. I appreciate this one where he looks at John's view of Theodicy. He calls it the Epistle of the either/or. He goes on to say "the polarities posed by John cannot be brought together in Hegelian synthesis or in the dialectic resolution of a Christic incarnational expression. They exist as polar opposites which form a spiritual 'either/or'."

You and I like lists and Jim has provided many. For that point alone I think you would like him and I wonder if he knows about your Biblewheel? By the way, thanks for looking at the long list of questions I posted. I have another post started on that one and have to go finish that one up on another computer. I am really liking my new IMac and can't seem to stay off of it.

Here you go...


CONTRASTS
The first epistle of John could well be called 'The epistle of the either/or'. John seems to have viewed spiritual realities in a binary mode of thinking. He clearly saw the polarities, the opposites, the dichotomies and antitheses of the spiritual world. This does not mean that John viewed spiritual realities in the conceptualization of classic dualism though, for such conceptualization (evident in Eastern philosophies, such as the yin/yang dualism) posits equal and balanced powers of good and evil, positive and negative, neither of which can ever gain the ascendancy. John quite clearly understood the ultimate and absolute sovereignty of God in Christ, and that the Evil One was created by, derived from, and subordinate to God. John recognized that there was a cosmic conflict between God and Satan, good and evil; and that the character of either of these spiritual sources could be employed in human behavior. In addition, John realized that the vic- tory in this cosmic conflict had been won by the work of Jesus Christ. John wanted his Christian readers to understand that the character of their behavioral expressions was derived from either God or Satan, either representing or misrepresenting the One who lived in them, Jesus Christ.

Some might attempt to interpret John’s contrasts and dichotomies by likening them to the dialec- tic theology of Kierkegaard, Barth, Brunner, Ellul, et al, but the polarities posed by John cannot be brought together in Hegelian synthesis or in the dialectic resolution of a Christic incarnational expression. They exist as polar opposites which form a spiritual 'either/or'.

What follows is a listing of some of the contrasting opposites that can be found in this first epistle of John.
Chapter One
1:5 God is light
1:6 walk in darkness
1:8,10 say we have no sin

Chapter Two
2:1 not sin

2:3 keep His commandments
2:7,8 old commandment
2:8 darkness passing away
2:9,10 in the light

2:10 loves his brother
2:15 love the world
2:16 from Father
2:17 passing away
2:19 not of us
2:21 truth
2:27 true
1:7 1:9
2:4
2:9,11 2:11
no darkness walk in light confess our sins
sins
 does not keep His commandments new commandment 
true light shining
 in darkness
 hates his brother
 love of the Father 
from the world
 abides forever
 of us 
lie


Chapter Three
3:2 it has not appeared
3:4 commits sin
3:10 children of God
3:11 love brother
3:12 works evil
3:14 death life
3:14 loves brother
3:14 abides in death
3:18 love in word, tongue
3:19 assure our hearts
3:20 heart condemns us

Chapter Four
4:1 spirit...of God
4:2 spirit that confesses Christ
4:2,3 Christ
4:6 of God
4:6 spirit of truth
4:7 love...know God
4:18 love

4:20 love brother

Chapter Five
5:10 he who believes
5:12 has Son

5:12 life

5:19 we are of God
3:15 hate brother

3:15 eternal life abiding in him
love in deed and truth
3:20 heart condemns us
3:21 we have confidence
4:3 spirit...not of God

4:3 spirit that does not confess Christ
4:3 antichrist
not of God
spirit of error

4:8 does not love...know God
fear
 hate brother
he who does not believe does not have Son
 does not have life
 whole world in Evil One
when He appears
3:6 does not sin
children of the devil
3:12 murder brother
works righteous

REFERENCES TO EVIL
John’s perspective of the 'either/or' of spiritual realities allows him to address more clearly the origin and operation of evil as derived from the Evil One. This first epistle of John has perhaps the most defined theodicy of all the New Testament literature. Theodicy (derived from theos, meaning 'God', and dike, meaning 'justice') is the attempted explanation of the just attitude of God toward evil and all that is not consistent with His character of good. Theodicy pertains to the so-called 'problem of evil', and the questions often posed concerning: 'Where does evil origi- nate? or 'Why does a just God, a good God, allow evil in the world He created?'

John seems to clearly indicate the diabolic etiology of all character that is not consistent with the character of God. 'He who sins derives what he does from the devil' (3:8). Much of evangelical thinking has been steeped in the humanistic fallacy of human self-generation of character in behavior; i.e. that man generates his own sin, evil and unrighteousness (even though they often deny that man can generate his own righteousness). The ill-defined theodicy of evangelicalism has been unwilling to accept the premise stated by John, that Satan, the devil, the Evil One, the deceiver, the destroyer is the personal spiritual source and origin of sin, unrighteousness, evil, death, etc.

For this reason it is extremely important that we study the references to evil in this first epistle of John. Here is a list of some of those references:
Chapter One
1:5 in God...no darkness
1:6 walk in darkness ... lie ...do not practice truth
1:7 cleanses from sin
1:8 say have no sin ... deceiving ourselves ... truth no in us
1:9 confess our sins ...forgives our sins ...cleanse from unrighteousness
1:10 say have not sinned ... make Him a liar ... truth not in us

Chapter Two
2:1 not sin ... if anyone sins
2:2 our sins ... sins of whole world
2:4 liar ... truth not in him
2:8 darkness is passing away
2:9 hates brother ... in the darkness
2:11 hates brother ... in the darkness ... walks in darkness ... darkness has blinded his eyes
2:12 sins are forgiven
2:13 overcome the Evil One
2:14 overcome the Evil One
2:15 love the world ... things in the world
2:16 all that is in world ... lust of flesh ... lust of eyes ... pride of life ... not of God ... of world
2:17 world is passing away ... and its lusts
2:18 antichrist is coming ... now many antichrists have arisen

2:19 they went out from us ... not of us ... shown that they are not of us
2:21 no lie is of the truth
2:22 liar denies Jesus is Christ ... antichrist ... denies Father and Son
2:26 those trying to deceive you
2:27 not a lie

Chapter Three
3:4 practices sin ... practices lawlessness ... sin is lawlessness
3:5 take away sins ... in Him there is no sin
3:6 abide in Him, no sins ... sins, haven’t seen Him or known Him
3:7 let no one deceive you
3:8 one who practices sin is of the devil ... devil sinned from beginning ... Son of God came 
to destroy the works of the devil
3:9 born of God, do not practice sin ... cannot sin
3:10 children of the devil ... does not practice righteousness ... does not love brother
3:12 Cain, of Evil One ... slew his brother ... deeds were evil
3:13 world hates you
3:14 out of death into life ... no love, abides in death
3:15 hates his brother, a murderer ... murderer, no eternal life
3:17 brother in need, close heart

Chapter Four
4:1 false prophets gone out into world
4:3 spirit does not confess Jesus from God, antichrist ... already in world
4:4 he who is in the world
4:5 from the world ... speak as from world ... world listens
4:6 spirit of error
4:8 no love, does not know God
4:10 propitiation for our sins

4:18 fear ... loves casts out fear ... fear involves punishment ... fear, not perfected in love
4:20 hate brother ... liar ... don’t love brother, can’t love God

Chapter Five
5:4 overcomes the world ... overcome the world
5:5 overcomes the world
5:10 don’t believe God, make Him a liar 5:12 don’t have Son, don’t have life
5:16 committing a sin not unto death ... sin not unto death ... sin unto death
5:17 unrighteousness is sin ... sin not unto death
5:18 no one born of God sins ... evil one does not touch him
5:19 whole world lies in the evil one
5:20 guard yourself from idols

REFERENCES TO GRACE
Unlike Paul’s writings which always begin and end with references to the 'grace' of God in Jesus Christ, the first epistle of John has no direct or explicit references to 'grace' within the letter. The reader must be careful not to draw a false conclusion that John did not clearly understand the gospel of grace as Paul did.
Grace is God in action in accord with His character as expressed in His Son, Jesus Christ. As John explained in his gospel record, 'grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ' (John 1:17). Grace is God doing what He does because He is who He is, and that through the expressive agency of His Son. The grace activity of God is evident throughout the first epistle of John, both in historical references as well as continuing expressions, and in both objective and subjective expressions.

The importance of understanding how this epistle is thoroughly permeated with an understanding of God’s grace will become particularly evident when we proceed to the next category of 'human responsibility.' Many have read the first epistle of John as if it were a legalistic document advocating the performance of 'works,' because they failed to see John’s underlying and implicit understanding of grace. We want to avoid such a misreading, so we note some of the references to God activity of grace, as follows:

Chapter One
1:1 from beginning, Word of life
1:2 life was manifested ... eternal life ... manifested to us
1:3 fellowship with us ... fellowship with Father, and with Jesus Christ
1:4 joy may be made complete
1:5 God is light
1:7 walk in the light ... fellowship with one another ... blood of Christ cleanses from sin
1:9 He is faithful and just to forgives our sins ... cleanse us from all unrighteousness

Chapter Two
2:1 we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins ... for those of whole world
2:3 come to know Him
2:5 love of God has been perfected
2:8 true light is shining

2:10 abides in the light
2:12 sins are forgiven
2:13 know Him ... overcome the evil one ... know the Father
2:14 know Him who has been from beginning ... you are strong ... Word of God abides in you ... 
overcome the evil one
2:17 does the will of God
2:20 you have an anointing from the Holy One ... you know
2:21 know the truth ... you know it
2:23 confesses Son ... has Father
2:25 promise of eternal life
2:27 anointing abides in you ... teaches you ... you abide in Him
2:29 born of God

Chapter Three
3:1 love of Father bestowed on us ... called children of God
3:2 we are children of God ... we shall be like Him ... see Him as He is
3:5 He appeared to take away sins
3:7 practice righteous is righteous
3:8 Son appeared to destroy works of devil
3:9 born of God ... His seed abides in him ... born of God
3:10 children of God
3:14 we have passed out of death into life 3:16 He laid down His life for us
3:19 we are of the truth ... hearts assured
3:20 God greater than our hearts ... knows all things
3:24 He abides in us ... Spirit given to us

Chapter Four
4:4 You are from God ... greater is He who is in you
4:6 we are from God
4:7 born of God ... knows God
4:9 love of God was manifested in us ... God sent His only Son into the world ... we might live 
through Him
4:10 He loved us ... sent His Son to be propitiation for our sins
4:11 God so loved us
4:12 God abides in us ... His love is perfected in us
4:13 we abide in Him ... He in us ... He has given us of His Spirit
4:14 Father sent the Son to be Savior of the world
4:15 God abides in him ... we in Him
4:16 know the love God has for us ... abide in God ... God in us
4:17 love is perfected with us ... as He is, so are we in this world
4:18 perfect love casts out fear
4:19 He first loved us

Chapter Five
5:1 born of God

5:4 whatever is born of God overcomes the world ... victory that has overcome the world
5:7 Spirit bears witness
5:9 witness of God
5:10 the witness in himself
5:11 God has given us eternal life ... this life is in His Son
5:12 He who has the Son has life
5:13 you have eternal life
5:14 He hears us
5:16 God will give him life
5:18 born of God ... evil one does not touch him
5:19 we are of God
5:20 Son of God has come ... given us understanding ... we are in Him who is true ... in Jesus Christ

HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY
There are numerous imperatives within the first epistle of John inculcating human responsibility and action. In addition there are other statements implying human action and Christian consistency in expressing and representing the character of Christ. Several of these contain the condition or contingency of an 'if...then' phrase, which may or may not be interpreted as a linear cause and effect.

Apart from the underlying understanding of the grace of God (as noted in the previous section), these statements of human responsibility can easily be misunderstood in a legalistic, moralistic or fundamentalistic framework (as has often been evident in the commentaries on this epistle). Only when we recognize John’s polarity of good and evil as derived from God or Satan respectively, alongside of his presuppositional understanding of God’s grace, can we conclude that John is not advocating epistemological knowledge or ethical conformity, but bases his calls to human action on the fact that God is the dynamic of His own demands. God does not ask us to do anything as Christians, but that He provides the full empowering to do so by the indwelling presence of the Spirit of Christ. The human responsibility within Christian behavior is the dependent receptivity of faith allowing for the derivative expression of Christ’s character and activity through our behavior. When we understand this premise of grace expressed through faith, the first epistle of John becomes an exciting venture for understanding Christian behavior.

Note some of the references to human responsibility, bearing in mind that they can only be implemented in the dynamic of God’s grace:

Chapter One
1:2 seen, bear witness and proclaim eternal life
1:3 seen, heard, proclaim
1:7 walk in the light
1:9 confess our sins

Chapter Two
2:1 do not sin

2:3,4 keep His commandments
2:5 keep His word
2:6 abide in Him ... walk as He walked
2:10 love the brethren
2:13 know Him ... overcome Evil One ... know the Father
2:14 know Him ... are strong ... overcome the Evil One
2:15 do not love world or things in world
2:17 do the will of God
2:24 let God abide in you
2:27 abide in Him
2:28 abide in Him
2:29 practice righteousness

Chapter Three
3:3 purify oneself
3:6 does not sin
3:7 let no one deceive you ... practice righteousness
3:9 does not practice sin
3:11 love one another
3:14 love the brethren
3:16 lay down lives for brethren
3:17 open hearts to those in need
3:18 love in deed and truth
3:22 ask
3:23 believe in name of Jesus Christ ... love one another

Chapter Four
4:1 test the spirits
4:7 love one another
4:11 love one another
4:12 love one another
4:18 no fear
4:20 love brother
4:21 love brother

Chapter Five
5:1 believe that Jesus is Christ ... love the Father, love One born of Him
5:2 love children of God ... keep His commandments
5:3 keep His commandments
5:4 faith
5:4,5 overcome the world

5:10 believe in the Son of God

5:13,14,15 believe in the name of the Son of God

5:14 ask according to His will

5:18 do not sin ... keeps himself and evil one does not touch him
5:20 know the Son of God has come
5:21 guard yourselves from idols

(These lists were compiled as a collective effort by the participants of the Neighborhood Church of Fallbrook, California.)



Have a great week,
Rick

[heb13-13]

Sorry Richard, the first attempted post was all messed up. I have fixed it now just in case you are reading the first, awfully formatted one.

All the best,
Rick