Sometimes we can concentrate on vast, global fears and ignore the prosaic, everyday fears. I have found that these greats fears can often affect us less than the common daily struggles. Sometimes it is easier to trust God for salvation or the fate of the world than the money to pay the bills next month. One of the problems here is that God does not promise He will always make the problems immediately go away (2 Corinthians 12:7-10; 4:16-18; John 16:33). God does promise, in the long run, to take care of His people (Philippians 4:19; Matthew 6:25-34; Romans 8:28) and to hear our prayers (Philippians 4:6,7; 1 John 5:14,15; Matthew 7:7-11). But He does this in His way and according to His timing. Therefore, we need to trust Him (Proverbs 3:5,6; Psalms 37:3-6; 127:1,2) and wait on Him for His timing (Isaiah 40:31; Psalms 46:10; 130,5,6). But as my own experience shows, this is often easy to say and hard to do. And God is still working on this in me.
I am learning to separate the fears of this world from trusting God. Bad things will happen whether I trust God or not. The difference is that I do not see God as the author (passively or actively) of the bad things.
ReplyDeleteAs you know I disagree with this position. I feel we have fairly thoroughly discussed it. If you want we to present my arguments again I can, but I think it would probably produce more heat than light.
DeleteSo hear is my point. You wrote:
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is easier to trust God for salvation or the fate of the world than the money to pay the bills next month.
If one believes that God controls everything then maybe it is a part of his will that the rent go unpaid. Perhaps he is leading a person to experience homelessness? I realize that it sounds absurd but seems consistent with a view that God is control of such things in our lives.
Do not want to rehash old conversations but it could be helpful your POV regarding the rent paying scenario I just described. OK if you do not want to discuss.
I admit in the context of a short post I have perhaps been a bit simplistic. I cannot claim that one who trusts in God will never experience homelessness. In that case they would need to trust God in spite of being homelessness. I have to admit that is one of the reasons why it is sometimes difficult to trust God in everyday circumstances is you can never be absolutely sure you will get the answer you want. God does not categorically promise we will never be homeless. But I do not see how the issue of God being control is relevant here. Could you explain?
DeleteI do want to be testy about this subject. It just seemed like we had reached a point where we were saying the same things over and over again and not getting anywhere. When you reach the point where you are spinning your wheels sometimes it is best just to let the subject rest.
ReplyDeleteI guess the issue is weather it is God's will that one is homeless. If he control's everything then can one say that anything is not his will?
DeleteIn terms not of God's declared will, His ideal, but His providential will, what He will permit to happen to serve His purpose, I would say the thing He would not allow is something that which does not accomplish His purposes. We may not understand it, but we can trust that He knows what He is doing in our lives even if we are homeless. It is not the specific event I see as the limit but that to events are random and senseless.
ReplyDeleteBut I find it more comforting to believe God is in control of what happens to me and even if I end up homeless it will accomplish God's purposes in my life, then that I am at the mercy of random forces and God would like to help me, but for some reason is unable to. You seem to feel differently. Can you explain?
I see no evidence in the scriptures that God has a variety of "wills" that we are left to choose from. Yet I do understand the reason that some with a peculiar theological POV contrive such things as a "declared will" and a "providential will".
ReplyDeleteReally, why pray for God's will to be done if everything can be lumped into some theological category of God's will. Seems like an exercise in manipulating the meaning of the word "will".
For example, if my kid asks me if it is my will for them to skip school, I would not say that it was my providential will but not my declared will. Such nonsense would only serve to confuse the kid. In like manner calling bad things a part of God's "providential will" only serves to confuse people.
All that said, I do believe that the will of God is always good, and acceptable, and perfect. It is what I pray for when I ask for his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. God's will is heavenly not earthly.
Regarding finding comfort in a God who allows heinous things and refuses to prevent evil - I am glad that you find comfort in such an ominous entity. That image is certainly not the God that I worship or the One who comforts me in times of trouble.
Lastly, if bad things are a part of God's will (albeit the providential flavor) should we not all thank God for homelessness, cancer, natural disasters and mass murders? I realize that it sounds absurd but seems to be the logical conclusion of saying that homelessness is a part of God's will.
Did I come off as sarcastic. I did not mean to. The truth is I really do not know where you are coming from. I could respond to your arguments which would just put us through another round of getting nowhere. But I cannot see how it is possible for God not to be in any sense the passively or actively in control of evil. The only way I can explain it is to see that there is someone or something greater than God which prevents Him from doing what He wants, which you have repeatedly denied. Can you clarify?
DeleteThe only way I can explain it is to see that there is someone or something greater than God which prevents Him from doing what He wants, which you have repeatedly denied. Can you clarify?
ReplyDeleteI understand that it is difficult for you to grasp the concept of delegated dominion because you believe (correct me if I am wrong) that God cannot be sovereign if humans really have the ability to choose. I would remind you that God did delegate, and to a degree relinquish, his dominion over the earth to humans in the very beginning of Genesis. This is an obvious fact to those of us who do not see God as a divine micromanager who is responsible for evil as well as good.
Regarding your idea that there is something that prevents God from doing what he really wants. Are you saying that it is in the nature of God to do bad or evil? I am sure that you are not. My view is that God constrains himself. He simply cannot do evil because it is in his nature to only do good. He cannot hate because he "is" love. He cannot do bad because he "is" good. And perhaps that is the difference between you and me. I believe that God is good and he is love. You seem to hold a different view.
All that said, I thought that you might provide some evidence of where you find the concept of "declared will" and a "providential will" in the bible. The concern that I have for such a concept is that it paints God as an entity who is not timeless and one who's will cannot be discerned. Misplaced thinking such as that causes religious people to spout drivel like "all things happen for a reason". So I am hoping that you can help me understand your view of the will of God.
You seem to have misunderstood me on several points. I cannot say whether I have simply been unclear but you may be reacting to people other than me.
DeleteI do not deny that human beings have the ability to choose. I do believe that God being God can control those choices to bring about He purposes. I do not claim to know how God can do this, but I do believe that choices are the decisions of those who make them and they are responsible for them. The problem is I do not see that as even speaking to the real issue here.
I understand the free will defense to the problem of evil. I have held it and do hold still hold to it in some extent in a qualified form. But the free will defense only speaks to the problem of sin, willful disobedience to God. It does not answer any of the following questions:
Why is there evil not directly the result of human choice, disease, hurricanes, earthquakes etc.?
Why God does not prevent the suffering the results for people who are the not the authors of the sin, for instance why bullets do not bounce off? This would undoubtedly frustrate evil-doers but it would not take away their ability to choose.
It does not explain how God is not at least passively in control of evil. I do not see the distinction between God allows evil to allow for free will and God allows evil to judge sin, bring people to Himself and help them them to grow in Him. The only difference is that the second explanation covers all evil and the first does not.
Perhaps by delegation you mean something beyond the free will defense. If so I am not sure what it means and why God would do it. But I do not see how delegation by itself relieves God of the responsibility for the agents actions. The idea of the free will defense as I understand it is that it serves a higher purpose to allow people to make choices. But I do not see how a farther delegation accomplishes anything.
I am not claiming that your view requires a power higher than God that prevents Him from doing evil. I am claiming in requires one that prevents Him from doing good. That prevents Him from eliminating disease, stopping earthquakes and making the bullets bounce off. I do not see as I said above how free will or delegation solves this problem. I believe God is loving and good and being loving and good deals with sin in the lives of people. One way He does this is using suffering in the lives of people to bring them to Himself and help them to grow in Him. I believe He is justified in that because anything He brings into our live is less then what our sin really deserves. But I do not see this as making Him not good or unloving, but quite the opposite.
As for Scriptural evidence that God uses specific, even bad, events to accomplish His purposes I offer the following as a limited selection: Acts 4:2,28; 2 Corinthians 12:7-10; Hebrews 12:4-11; Ephesians 1:11; 1 Corinthians 11:30; Acts 5:1-11; John 9:3; Genesis 50:20; Jonah 1:4,17; Habakkuk 1:5-12. You can claim that the writers were wrong and misunderstood what God was telling them, but I cannot see how it is possible to avoid the idea that the Bible claims the God uses specific events to accomplish His purposes.
I will try to respond to your comment:
ReplyDeleteGod can control those choices to bring about He purposes
In those cases humans would not be responsible for their choices.
Why is there evil not directly the result of human choice, disease, hurricanes, earthquakes etc.?
Do not understand the question. Are you asking whether human choices create natural disasters?
Why God does not prevent the suffering the results for people who are the not the authors of the sin, for instance why bullets do not bounce off? This would undoubtedly frustrate evil-doers but it would not take away their ability to choose.
Evil comes from within creation and not from God.
But I do not see how delegation by itself relieves God of the responsibility for the agents actions.
Humans are free agents and not divine agents. Humans have the freedom to do good or do bad.
I believe God is loving and good and being loving and good deals with sin in the lives of people
I am glad to hear you say that.
One way He does this is using suffering
Using suffering is very different than allowing or causing it. Allowing or causing suffering contradicts ( and potentially blasphemes) the idea that God is loving and good. Again bad things come from within creation and not from God.
the Bible claims the God uses specific events to accomplish His purposes
Using is different from allowing or causing. Regarding those verses you reference, I would be interesting in reading your take on each of them. Perhaps we might agree on some of them.
Lastly, I was hoping that you might provide some evidence of where you find the concept of "declared will" and a "providential will" in the bible.
You seem to still not understand my main point and I do not know how to make it any clearer. My concern is not with the existence of sin (wrong choices) but suffering, particularly suffering of those whose suffering is not a result of their own bad moral choices. Free will can be used to explain sin, I do not see how it explains suffering. The only answer I have to suffering is that it serves a purpose in the life of the sufferer and God uses it to accomplish His purpose in their lives. This implies that God is in control of this suffering and matches it to the needs of the person. I consider a God who simply sits back and totally ignores senseless suffering which serves no purpose a far greater moral problem than a God who controls suffering to accomplish His purposes.
DeleteInterpreting all those verses is a little much for a com-box. Perhaps I can put together a post and you can comment on it.
What I mean by "declared will" is there are certain things that God commands: love God, love your neighbor, do not murder etc. I think we would agree that this exists.
By "providential will" I mean that God is in control of the actual specific events that happen to accomplish His purpose. It is to show this that I have offered the list of verses that I gave. I could provide many more. But perhaps I will have to write that post and go through one passage at a time and discuss it to deal with the issue.
Do you have a different meaning for these terms? The terms themselves do not occur in the Bible, but as I understand them I would maintain the substance is clearly taught.
Free will can be used to explain sin, I do not see how it explains suffering.
ReplyDeleteHumanity's defining story began with sin. Sin caused expulsion from the garden and created a world of suffering. I am amazed that you think differently. Regarding the suffering from natural disasters, I think that you probably learned about the science behind them in high school.
By "providential will" I mean that God is in control of the actual specific events that happen to accomplish His purpose.
I agree with you that the terminology is not biblical. In my view it comes from a theological dogma. I do not think that the will of God is as arbitrary as you paint it. If it were then one could say nonsensical things like the death of an unborn child at the hand of an abortionist was a part of God's will. Such a heinous act was never part of God's will. God's will is like God - timeless, good, acceptable and perfect. Anything else is not a reflection of God's will but a human attempt at blaming God for the bad things that happen.
I think that you and I cannot reconcile our different views because you begin with a description of God defined by primitive people who saw God like Job saw him. One who metes out good and evil. One who gives and takes away. I once had a similar view. Wrote a booklet that espoused that view. Then I began to embrace the life of Jesus as my defining view of God. One who did not create the storm but spoke peace to it. One who did not cause anyone to suffer but suffered in their place. One who did not hurt but healed. One who showed us that God only did good and loving things and never did one bad thing.
My thinking is that we do not have a problem with the theology of suffering but in the theology of God. It seems to me that a God who, passively or actively, does bad things is more like Zeus than Jesus.
I fully agree that suffering is the result of sin. I would maintain that that suffering is a result of sin because sin deserves it and God uses it to bring people to repentance. You seem to hold that God just allows this for no reason. To say God delegates such things neither explains them or excuses God. If I delegate something to someone I am responsible fro what they do, particularly if I leave them in the position after it they had abused it. There needs to be a reason for God to do this. In terms of sin the argument is that God wants people love and obey Him voluntarily. So far I understand and would at least to some extent agree. I do not see how this applies to suffering. I do not see how free will in any way explains why suffering exists if it serves no purpose in the life of the sufferer.
DeleteI do not believe that science is above God. I believe God created the scientific laws and could have made them different if He chose. Also that scientific laws are not lockstep determinations but on the most basic level events are effected by probability and minor differences in initial conditions. To say that God could not have made the world work differently clearly implied there is something or someone above God that keeps Him from doing things.
From what I can see your view comes from the nineteenth century view that judgment and punishment of wrong-doing is wrong. This is not found in the Bible Old or New Testament including the sayings of Jesus. It is a recent innovation against all the wisdom of the human race up to that point. It is wrong and mischievous and produced many evils. I have no love for Zeus, but I am not sure He is not preferable.
Do you see why I did want to get into this in the first place. You have said you are my friend and I want to believe you are. But you seem bound and determined to get me mad and get me to say things in the meanest possible ways. Do you really want me to go on about how heinous I think it is for God to sit around on His hands and watch children dying when it accomplished nothing good whatsoever. Is this conversation accomplishing anything except getting each other mad.
I apologize for getting you mad and provoking you. I think that it would be disingenuous to say that I did not mean to provoke you. Sometimes I do say/write things that are meant to provoke a person to think. Yet I do not realize that my words can sometimes provoke anger. So again, please accept my apology.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, you have not offended me in any way. Your comments always provoke me too think and never inspire anger in me. I love our exchanges but can see that the feeling is not mutual.
Perhaps there is a way for iron to sharpen iron without sparks flying? Not sure that I know how to do that. In the future I will try to keep the sparks to a minimum.
I do very generally enjoyed our discussions even when we disagree. But I feel rather rightly or wrongly, that there are certain questions that are so emotionally charged for you that you cannot understand or respect my point of view. I do not criticize for that, Everyone has to decide what they will go to the wall for. But this seems to result in our going over the same arguments over and over again. I may be wrong but the impression I get is that you feel if you just say it one more time more emphatically I will get it. The problem is that I do not feel I do not see or understand what you are saying but I do not agree. That is why I feel we are not accomplishing anything but antagonizing each other on certain issues. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but that is what I am perceiving.
DeleteI feel I do need retract one thing of what I said. While I do feel that I understand your basic position there are certain details I do not understand. And these are the things I ask about over and over again and get no answer. Maybe they are things that are just so obvious to you that you feel that they do not need explained, but they leave me scratching my head. I want to again put it down to the emotionally charged nature of the subject, but again I feel we are getting nowhere.
ReplyDelete"While I do feel that I understand your basic position there are certain details I do not understand."
DeletePerhaps we can take it one detail at a time? Feel free to ask one concise question and I will give it my best shot.
Perhaps I have read to many comic books and works of science fiction, but I am not being facetious in asking why God from your point of view God could not eliminate suffering by making the bullets bounce off or pass through or something similar. This does not seem to me to require a miracle or even a major change in the laws of nature, just a change in how human beings are constructed.
DeleteI apologize if that is not really concise but I did not know how to say it in fewer words.
I am confused by your question. On one hand it seems to be the question of why God did not alter the laws of nature to be ineffective when such laws would cause harm to a human being. But I am not sure if that is your question because you say that it would not require a major change in the laws of nature. For example, the law of gravity would need to be altered when a person is thrown out of the window of a high story building. That seems to be a major change in the laws of nature.
DeleteSo maybe you could refine the question to be a bit clearer?
In your specific example I would say God could make the person's frame strong enough to fall without being hurt without nullifying the law of gravity. A fall from a height might even be fun if no injury could result.
DeleteBut though you said one question at a time, your answer to the question clearly brings up a second one. Are you saying that God is willing or unable to change the physical laws or even cannot? While I would lean toward a simpler solution, I do not see why God would not be willing to make major alterations in physical law to avoid suffering if that suffering did not serve His purpose.
Again, I am not sure what you are asking me. Are you asking why God did not make humans like Superman? If He did then it would seem that humans would be indestructible and immortal. Such people would have no need of God and would eventually outgrow the planet because they would never die.
ReplyDeleteRegarding God's ability to change physical laws: I certainly believe in miracles which defy physical laws.
Again though, I am not sure that these questions that you are asking me are germaine to the part of my theology that you do not understand.
Your questions make me wonder if we have completely misunderstood each other in some way. Let me answer last question first and start at the beginning.
DeleteYou said, "The difference is that I do not see God as the author (passively or actively) of the bad things." Based on our previous discussions I have understood this as a rejection of the idea that God in any way orchestrates or controls such events to accomplish His purposes. (I would not say God authors bad things unless they are a judgment miraculously produced or specifically commanded by Him.) If I have completely or partially misunderstood you please clarify.
It is my contention that the only reason that bad things in terms of suffering, particularly suffering that is not a result of wrong-doing on the part of the sufferer are allowed to exist by God is that they serve His purpose for them to do so. Your response to the Superman concept here is a perfect example of what I mean. One clear reason God permits suffering it is because it causes us to trust in God and not in our own self-sufficiency. But his implies to me that God at least passively controls suffering unless I have understood your meaning.
But if suffering serves no purpose in the life of the sufferer I do not see why God does not just eliminate it. Now I see why allows people to make sinful choices. What I do not see is why these choices, let alone purely nature calamities should be allowed to cause suffering in lives of those who have not brought it upon themselves. It is in service of this I brought in the Superman illustration. It was intended to show that God could do away with the do away with the suffering of the victim without doing away with the free will of the perpetrator. This may indeed result in the victim becoming arrogant and ignoring God. But this is my original point that God uses suffering to accomplish His purpose in the life of the sufferer.
Am I still clear as mud? Is there something I could do to clarify what I am saying.
I am not sure of what you are wanting Mike. You indicate that you do not want debate because you feel it to be fruitless. But you say that there are certain details of my views that you do not understand. I am willing to provide you with those details but you have not told me what those details are. Instead you seem to be wanting to draw me into debate again. So, is there a way that we can discuss one view at a time? Is it too difficult to take it one of my views at a time?
ReplyDeleteYou said you did not understand why my question was relevant, so I have tried to explain it. I am not so much trying to debate as to show from my point of view why the question is relevant. I thought it be helpful if I could at better understand where you are coming from. But it seems to be just leading back into debate. Maybe it is the wrong approach. I could stick to my first question but if you consider it relevant to the whole issue I do not see any point in it.
DeleteI think this is the question that you asked (and are referencing) and my attempt at an answer:
ReplyDelete"why God from your point of view God could not eliminate suffering by making the bullets bounce off or pass through or something similar."
He could have made us that way. If he did then it seems that we might have been born immortal. Of course he could have made us that way with an expiration date? My guess would be that indestructible people might not see a need to be born again or to trust God.
Back to reality, God did not make humans indestructible but made them in such a way that they would need each other and need God. Unfortunately many choose to not love and help their neighbor. Instead of loving and helping they hate and hurt. This in no way is a reflection on God whose will is that people always love and help each other.
Hope this helps and answers your question. Feel free to respond of inquire further.
Happy Sunday.
I wholly agree with your answer. My problem, which is one of the things that may have got lost in my perhaps too long former answer is this leaves me with the question of what we are disagreeing on. Your answer that to make us superman so we would trust in God and not feel we are self-sufficient is what I mean by God allows suffering for a purpose. Is the issue over whether God controls suffering or simply has to take it as it comes. I find it hard to believe we have disagreed over nothing.
DeleteSince Creation God has allowed suffering in the same generic way that he has allowed sin. Both sin and suffering come from the will/choice of man and not from the will/choice of God. Still in agreement?
ReplyDeleteYes and no. I believe all suffering comes ultimately and a large majority of it immediately from the choices of man. But I would hold that the fact it is allowed to exist at all is a choice on the part of God even if His is completely passive in it. I believe this is justified because it accomplishes His purpose in working against sin.
DeleteNow I would go beyond that and say that God controls that suffering to serve His purpose and even in a few specific instances directly acts in judgment. But it would at least appears it is not just this second step you disagree with, but also my original conclusion.
"God controls that suffering to serve His purpose"
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you mean by "control". Perhaps you can explain how you see His "control" manifested in the world.
I do think that God exerts influence over suffering through the ministry and leadership of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the saints. In that way evil is overcome by good, pain is alleviated by healing and love triumphs over hate.
But if God actively or passively is involved in the suffering then any work of the Spirit would be seen as fixing something that God was complicit in breaking. That doesn't make sense to me but perhaps you can help me see the logic in it?
By control I mean that while God is not the cause of the suffering He does, in a way that is beyond our understanding, direct it to accomplish His purpose. Take the example of Joseph being sold into Egypt. That was an evil deed on the part of Joseph's brothers, but God used it to arrange things so that Joseph was in charge of Egypt and could provide for his family in the famine. I do not know how God can orchestrate events without causing them, but I would maintain that He does.
Delete"He does, in a way that is beyond our understanding"
ReplyDeleteFirstly, and I do not mean to offend, I do not find such statements to be rooted in solid theology. It opens the door for someone to say that God does things that are contrary to His nature in the guise of declaring that his ways are unknowable and beyond our comprehension. Better not to malign the character of God with such unprovable statements.
Regarding Joseph, I see God working through the dreams, fruit and gifts that he gave Joseph. I do not see him orchestrating the abuse at the hands of his brother, the Ishmaelites, Potifar's wife and Potifar himself. His brotherly betrayal was because of sin and was certainly not the way that God wanted Jacob/Israel to get to Egypt for help. That said, after the betrayal Joseph flourished in the worst of situations because he was faithful, patient and he used the gifts that God had given him. Not because a divine puppeteer was pulling the strings of sinful people making them to do evil things.
So on one hand a person could see God in Joseph's story as a divine puppeteer manipulating people and events to achieve his ends. On the other hand one could see God as an influencer in the lives of godly people like Joseph giving them gifts and helping them to help other people. The two views paint two different images of God. The first shows him to be no better than Satan, the one who manipulate to achieve his purposes. The second shows God to be the giver of dream, fruit and gifts. Two images rooted in scripture. One of Satan. One of God.
Thoughts?
"Firstly, and I do not mean to offend, I do not find such statements to be rooted in solid theology. It opens the door for someone to say that God does things that are contrary to His nature in the guise of declaring that his ways are unknowable and beyond our comprehension. Better not to malign the character of God with such unprovable statements."
DeleteI also do not mean to offend but I would totally disagree with with this statement. God is beyond total human understanding in more ways then I can imagine whether in being three in one or everywhere present or in many other ways. I do not see how God's using suffering to produce good is contrary to His character or makes Him like Satan. Nor do I see how His being passive absolves Him of responsibility.
The statement "you meant evil against me, but meant it for good" in Genesis 50:20 implies to me a more direct control of events then your description allows. But I meant Joseph simply as a illustration of what I was talking about.
Thoughts?
"God is beyond total human understanding in more ways then I can imagine"
ReplyDeleteYour description of God as omnipresent, omniscient, almighty and triune indicates that you have an understanding of God. I would add to this that the life of Jesus gives the understanding that God is compassionate, good and loving.
Genesis 50:20 speaks to me of how God used grace and grace gifts in the life of Joseph to overcome the evil perpetrated by his brothers and others. It speaks to me of how he uses spiritual gifts and fruit in the lives of his children to overcome evil.
So it seems that our disagreement centers around the nature of God. I see God as one who helps the saints overcomes evil through spiritual gifts and fruit. You seem to see God as one who is complicit in the evil that causes people to suffer.
I may be misreading though. Perhaps you can help me understand your understanding of the nature of God? Compassionate, good and loving? Or something else?
I think on reflection you are correct that our issue is over the nature of God. I think we are back to our old question of whether God judges sin in the present time. In my understanding the reason God is justified in sending suffering into our lives is because we deserve it. Now I believe in God's compassion and goodness and love He gives all of us far less suffering then we deserve. And in that compassion and goodness and love He uses what suffering we do have to serve His purpose and controls it to accomplish that purpose. I do not believe that makes Him complicit with evil. But if it does I do not see how He is not complicit if He sit by passively and does nothing and just lets suffering happen.
DeleteWe are obviously back to debating. Do we want to just let the sparks fly or have we reached an impasse?
"our old question of whether God judges sin in the present time."
ReplyDeleteSin has consequences. Ishmael, and his descendents, was a result of an absence of patience in Abraham. King David's absence of self control created chaos in his family. Herod's absence of sanity caused the murder of many infant boys. I do not think that all of this suffering was a result of God's judgment but about the consequences of sinful choices and the absence of righteous actions.
And when one considers the nature of sin, one has to understand that sin is the absence of righteousness as darkness is the absence of light or suffering is the absence of wellness. Sin, darkness and suffering only exist in the absence of something else.
"He uses what suffering we do have to serve His purpose and controls it to accomplish that purpose."
The idea of 'control' denotes a level of complicity. If you control something then you are involved deeply in it.
"I do not see how He is not complicit if He sit by passively and does nothing and just lets suffering happen."
That scenario points the finger at God for original sin when he, as you say, passively sat by and allowed the serpent to tempt and Adam to disobey.
In contrast to this idea of control I think that the scriptures paint God as a divine influencer. Since the beginning he seems to be more interested in persuading human beings than controlling and manipulating them. Yet unlike the Holy Spirit, Satan seems to use manipulation and control in the lives of humans.
So yes, I do think that our image of God is different. I see him as pure good and pure love. I see no shades of gray or darkness in his character or in the way that he rules the universe. You seem to embrace a different image. But I could be wrong.
Regarding sparks. I hope that we can find a way to spark each other to think without sparking our emotions. I enjoy the dialog and consider it to be a friendly exchange. But if you do not, then we should consider that we have reached an impasse.
I would totally agree that sin has consequences and that this is a way God deals with sin. I also believe God does on occasions judge sin directly. I do not see why He can do one and not the other. But this does not deal with what is for me the real question. The real question is why there is suffering in the life of someone who has not done something particular to deserve it. If the world were like that imagined by Job's comforters all might be smooth sailing, but it is not.
DeleteMy answer to this is that we are all sinners and that God puts us through suffering to serve a particular purpose. I see this as justified by the fact that whatever suffering happens to us is less than we deserve and God tempers it to meet our situation. It is like chemotherapy which puts the body through serious suffering to kill the cancer. But for God to simply stand by passively and do nothing without any plan to me is complicity. If I see a crime being committed and walk by and do nothing, particularly if I have the ability to intervene, that is to me clearly complicity. My only answer to that, is that allowing suffering serves a higher purpose in the plan of God.
As for Eden I do not see God being at all passive, He confronted the sinners, prescribed punishment and promised deliverance. God did allow them the space to make the original choice because He wanted them to voluntarily choose to obey Him. He does the same for us. But I do not believe He simply lets things run out of control from there. I agree that God uses persuasion, but I see suffering as one part of the persuasion He uses.
I suspect that our basic source for disagreement is that you cannot understand how God can control events without causing them. I agree, I do not understand it either. But I regard it as conceivable and you seem to regard it as inconceivable. I am not sure how to speak to that. Any suggestions?
I in all this suspect there may be some basic premise here that we are in disagreement on that has not been fully understood or stated. We seem to be coming from two different points of view both seeing our own way of looking at things as the obvious moral conclusion and the other as clearly wrong. I suspect we are both assuming something the other rejects.
"God puts us through suffering to serve a particular purpose."
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that "God puts us through" cancer or the killing of babies to teach us a lesson. Here in is the heart of our disagreement. You see the cancer and the abortionist as instruments of God bringing his will to pass. In doing so, I think that you are calling evil as good.
In contrast, I see these things as the product of a fallen creation under the influence of spiritual darkness. I believe that God is present in the body of Christ to combat such evils, not to see such things as expressions of God's will. I mean why go to an oncologist or protest at an abortion clinic if it is possible that God may be using such "suffering to serve a particular purpose". Seems that such a view of God would only create double-mindedness by imagining God as the author of both good and evil.
Again, I do think that our image of God is different. I see him as pure good and pure love. I see him as the good Shepherd. A loving Father. The solid unchanging Rock that I can depend on. I see no shades of gray or darkness in his character or in the way that he rules the universe. You seem to embrace an image that sees God as a mixture of light and dark sometimes using evil means to bring about his will. If I am wrong please correct me. Perhaps, in a few words, you can delineate the image of God that you embrace?
I do not see God's controlling evil as causing it or encouraging it but limiting it, allowing only to occur as much as is necessary to accomplish His purposes. I agree there are dark forces in the world and if God left them to their own devices earth would be hell itself. But I would consider God standing by and doing nothing when there is no purpose or control involved to be neither good nor loving. It is like bystanders walking by as a woman is being raped and doing nothing to help. This seems to me more than a minor shade of grey. So I agree we have different concepts of God. I believe God stands and works for justice in the world and does not just let it skate out of control.
DeleteI think that we disagree on how God "normally" works in the world. I see him limiting evil through people. You seem to hold a view that God mystically / magically controls evil by means other than the Holy Spirit working through people. In this you seem to feel that miraculous interventions are the norms of life. In espousing this you ignore the idea that God's presence on earth is the Body of Christ. We are his hand and feet. The way that he rules the world.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the situation you reference, I think that the Holy Spirit "normally" intervenes through good Samaritans who help those in distress (like the rape victim you reference). How else do you explain that God sometimes (as you say) stands by when such evil things are done? According to what you have written, God could limit the suffering all together but chooses to let the rape (cancer or abortion) happen because evil is not really evil but a means to his greater good / will. Why point the finger at God when it is obvious that the problem comes from within creation and not the Creator.
I also believe that God stands for justice in the world. But again, I see that justice coming through the Body of Christ and not through God's unknown mystical workings. I do wonder though, when one considers the Holocaust and the many genocides in world history, how you see those events (and others) as ones that did not skate out of control? If God operates as you espouse him to, then how was his non-action in the Holocaust just?
I fully agree that the Christian church has a obligation to work against evil and suffering (and I wish would take that function more seriously). But that does not answer the basic question of how God can allow suffering to exist at all. I do not see how to explain that except that it serves His purpose for it to do so. Otherwise God is just a passive observer, who refuses to help when He can. I do not claim to know why God allowed the Holocaust. I believe the purpose was probably different in the life of each the individuals involved. But if there was no purpose than God's inaction seems completely unjust.
Delete"But that does not answer the basic question of how God can allow suffering to exist at all.
ReplyDeleteSuffering is the absence of health and wholeness. It exists because people do not choose to love but choose hate or apathy instead. Those are the reasons for the Holocaust. It existed not because God needs evil to bring about his will but because German's chose evil and apathy instead of God. In truth, if God did not allow people to choose then love would not be love and people would be robots.
"Otherwise God is just a passive observer, who refuses to help when He can."
The Holy Spirit is not a passive observer but a powerful force in the life of the believer. The refusal to help has nothing to do with God and everything to do with us.
I do not know why this is so hard to understand? Not sure where the idea that God is a divine puppeteer comes from? The idea that God needs evil to fulfill his plan paints such a nefarious image of the One that I embrace as pure good, pure love and pure light. I believe that he is Light and there is no darkness in him. I do not see the image of God that you paint in the life of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you can help me see that image in the life of Jesus?
I do not limit the power of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to limit the power of God. If God limits Himself to working through us (and I do not think He does entirely), it is because He chooses to. And it He chooses to it is because it has a purpose. Undoubtedly He has a purpose to build us up. But God also has a purpose for the rest of the world and does not let it just go careening our of control. I do not see that as either loving or good. And a God who does not in the final analysis punish evil and act to hold it in check even in the present He seems to be shot through with darkness. I see no such passivity in the life of Jesus. He limited the full expression of His power to be a man, but He acted firmly and decisively against evil.
DeletePerhaps you could illustrate your points with a few examples from the life of Jesus?
ReplyDeleteHis rebuke of the Pharisees and other religious leaders. (Matthew 23 for example)
DeleteHis throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. (Probably twice Mark 11:15-18; John 2:13-22).
His continual rebukes and promises of judgment even over what we would consider "minor sins". (I am convinced that a major point of this was to get people to realize they were sinners and needed to come to Christ for forgiveness, but the element is certainly there.) (Matthew 5:17-30; 7:21-23; 11:20-24; 13:47-50; 18:6; 19:16-26; 25:31-46; Luke 13:1-5).
The withering of the fig tree is clearly meant as an object lesson, but it is a object lesson of judgment (Matthew 21:18-22).
Thoughts?
I take no issue with rebukes and the removal of robbers from temple grounds as a reflection of passionate divine love. Yet in contrast to your ideas of divine judgment Jesus offers forgiveness to sinners not judgment. He is called a friend of sinners. He never inflicts harm on anyone but is harmed in their place. When a prostitute is brought to him he contradicts Moses and tells the would-be stone-throwers that none of them were qualified to execute judgment.
ReplyDeleteJesus certainly communicated a message of repentance in his mission to preach the good news to the poor, recovery of sight for the blind, freedom for prisoners and the oppressed. He also spoke prophetically about about what would happen if people did not repent. Yet, unlike Moses, he stoned no one and did not show us in his life a violent image of God.
That said, I suspect that it is difficult for folks to really see Jesus as the true image of God that supersedes every other human image of God. Some prefer to embrace the Mosaic Warrior God image than that of the compassionate Lord Jesus Christ.
I would hold that God is always a God of love and forgiveness. But forgiveness implies standard which has been violated and a punishment that is deserved, otherwise it is just indulgence. You seem to see a God of love and a God of justice as contraries but I see them as both necessary elements of true goodness. Otherwise you are left with either a God who countenances evil or one that is harsh and tyrannical. I see both of these elements very clearly in the sayings of Jesus. He did not come the first time with judgment but with mercy to deliver us. But He repeatedly promised to come a second time with judgment. I do not believe these can be ripped apart.
DeleteI do not see why it is somehow all right to promise eternal judgment, but it is wrong ever to carry out any judgment on sin at the present time. In the case of the woman caught in adultery He was making a point, that her accusers were just as guilty as she was, that all needed forgiveness. But I do not see Him as doing away with all civil law. An argument for mercy is implied, but I do not see the idea they should be abolished.
The Law of Moses shows us what we deserve. This is to drive us to God for His forgiveness. Jesus far from abolishing it made it sterner, showing it applied even to the thoughts of the heart. This is to show us that our external religiosity is not enough and we to come to Christ for forgiveness. But it does not do away with the judgment of God.
Forgiveness is required because people choose not to love. Love is the standard not the Law of Moses. The law of love reflects the timeless will of God. Moses' commands display something that is not timeless therefore cannot be a reflection of a timeless God who changes not. If everyone chose to love then no civil law (like Mosaic law) would be required.
ReplyDeleteRegarding future judgments, they are the consequence of refusing to say yes to God, who is Love. In all of history humans have always had the choice to say yes to God and therefore say yes to Love. The heart of life is love. I am convinced of that.
Loving God and others is the plumbline of life. Obeying civil law (i.e. not murdering) pales in comparison to the Law of love (i.e. not hating in your heart). Would that this divine law be embraced, instead of an arbitrary civil flavor, by all humans.
I agree that loving God and others is the essence of God's law. But that does not do away with the other particulars. Rather they define how this is to be applied in specific instances. This is necessary because people left to themselves can develop many different ideas of what love means and we need the details to understand what is correct. While certain ceremonial aspect are done away with in the NT as being symbolic predictors of Christ, there is nowhere in the NT or the teachings of Christ where the law of Moses is dismissed as simply wrong and as being superseded. The problem is not that the Law is bad, but that we cannot keep it and need God's forgiveness.
DeleteI do not see God as being purely passive in judgment any more than He is purely passive in anything. The words Jesus uses are all active words, casting people into outer darkness, demanding them to depart from Him. Nowhere is He pictured sitting by the side of the road helplessly while people wander by on the road to hell.
I agree that the moral law is higher than the civil law, but that does not mean all civil law should simply be done away with.
You keeping repeating the idea that God is not passive. I certainly agree. Love is not passive. The power of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ is not passive. We understand these things because we know God and have his Spirit in us. People who do not know God call all sorts of things as "acts of God". We should not emulate their ignorance.
DeleteI would be interested to know what you mean by moral law though. Some Muslims think Sharia Law is moral. Some think that Mosaic Law is moral. The only law I see as moral is the Law of Love. It deals with the heart while others deal with externals.
The laws of man can be unjust in themselves. For example, any law that is cruel (i.e. cutting off a hand for stealing) or inhumane (i.e. executing a man for carrying wood on Sabbath) are more human than divine because they communicate something other than love. It is why we must examine what man calls law against the royal law that James speaks of.
I fully agree that we cannot go by what people happen to think is right. That is why we need revelation of God's commandments. I agree that the essence of God's commandments are love, but love has been greatly twisted and travestied by human beings and we need particulars to explain what constitutes love in a given situation. But I do not believe that genuine love can ever be separated from justice. That genuine can look down on tyrannical dictators or vicious criminals or to use the ultimate example Hitler and not ultimately require that there be consequences and actively uphold those consequences is not love, but countenancing evil. I believe that God is incredibly gracious and forgiving but that is not the same as saying wrongdoing does not matter. (I think it is senseless to argue whether certain punishments are excessive, if we cannot agree on the principle.)
DeleteSeems like we agree on a few things here. Suspect we generally agree on more than not. I read this yesterday:
ReplyDelete"It's better to be at peace than to argue until one is proven right, lest you both just be proven hardheaded."
Apologies to you for my hard headedness. ツ
Apologies for mine. We do have a considerable amount we agree on. We just have certain matters which we each feel strongly about on which we clash. And maybe it is better to just leave it that way. At least for now. :)
Delete