One disadvantage of conversations at Facebook, however, is that, with the passing of time, things posted there recede into oblivion, whereas posts here at the forum remain available permanent access. For that reason, I am posting here a recent debate between myself and a correspondent at Facebook. The whole dialogue exceeds the maximum permitted length for individual posts here, so it will be posted in four increments.
Travis, my foil in the conversation, is arguing a position that will be familiar to long-time participants here. Paidion and I have had this discussion on at least half a dozen extended threads. Travis, however, does not seem to be familiar with those, and has been influenced more by Greg Boyd, Michael Brown and Craig Keener, to believe that it is inappropriate and inaccurate to see God as having a purpose in human illness.
Travis, who is a medical doctor, called the radio show a few times in the past weeks, and decided to take the conversation (which I paste below) to Facebook.
My position is that God is all-powerful, and can prevent any disaster or illness from occurring to any individual, if only He purposes to prevent such. When He does not prevent it, it is for good reasons, not the least of which is the advancement of His own glory. John 9:1-3, where Jesus said the man was born blind "that the works of God might be manifested in him," is the text that got this conversation going.
Travis' view, like Paidion's, is that God is so absolutely committed to honoring the free will of men and angels, that He cannot always prevent sickness or disaster from befalling innocent people. The purpose of this novelty in theology is apparently to absolve God of any "blame" for the troubling things that come into our lives (as if God has ever sought to distance Himself from them to protect His own reputation!). This Facebook exchange, like all my debates, was initiated by my correspondent:
A Jesus-looking God would apparently be one who came to a place with a multitude of sick folks (the Pool of Bethesda), where all of them wished to be healed, healed one of them, and left the rest in their sickness.Travis—
Dear Steve, It was a joy to discuss John 9 with you this last week. In listening to the broadcast playback, some thoughts and questions have come to me. It seems that you boil sickness and disease down to God allowing it, or disallowing it. Either God doesn't want to heal someone, or the person's faith is to weak (ex. Jesus in his hometown). We talked about Paul's thorn, about Jacob's hip, about Exodus 4, about Psalm 119, about John 9, and in all those cases, there is very good evidence to answer those examples in a way that does not impute God as the sickness giver to teach someone a lesson, or for his glory. The one case you raised that I did not get to answer was the story of Job. According to theologians like Michael Brown and Greg Boyd, Job was a case of a one-time event in history to show that hardship is not so cut and dried. There are variables we don't understand, and to reduce it down to God not wanting to heal, or a person is at fault for that lack of healing, is not a correct way to judge any one circumstance. The free will actions of men and angels (spirit beings) play a role in what we experience as reality. (Daniel 10:13) We are victims of a fallen world where the free actions of men and angels (spirit beings) influence our reality. To me, it is God's highest desire to always restore and make whole. But God does not seem to trump all reality with an iron fist and ram rod his way blowing up the choices of free agents (man or angelic). The best books that lay a biblical foundation for this way of thinking that shaped my thinking on this was Greg Boyd's, "Is God to blame" and, "God of the Possible". Of course this is an open theism view, but even MIchael Brown's traditional free will view takes the view of a Jesus looking God (Hebrews 1:3), and does not leap frog the cross to read the Old Testament without understanding that it is God's progressive revelation. (1 Peter1: 11-12, 2 Cor 3:14) Love to hear your thoughts
Travis—
That was a Sabbath Day healing in John 5, just like in John 9. No one came in faith asking to receive healing. (Acts 10:38) Jesus used the Sabbath Day healing as a teaching moment in both cases. A sovereign plus factor if you will. We are not told that anyone called out in faith to be healed in either case.
Nor did the man whom Jesus healed. We are not even told that the man had faith to be healed. He didn't ask to be healed, and did not even know who Jesus was (even after his healing! John 5:12-13). Jesus just healed him because He (or His Father) wanted to. Why didn't He want to heal the others?
I agree that the healing on the Sabbath was to make a point. As near as I can tell, Jesus' entire healing ministry was to make a point. He healed the paralytic "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." He opened the eyes of the blind to demonstrate that is the light of the world. He raised Lazarus, fed the multitudes and turned water into wine to demonstrate that He was the Resurrection, the Bread of Life and the True Vine, respectively.
To say Jesus healed because He could not tolerate sickness leaves unanswered why He left so many unhealed. If we say that some were not healed for lack of faith, I doubt if this would be a fair assessment of Lazarus or his sisters. It certainly is not a fair assessment of the dozens of people I have known who have died or remained ill while professing with all their hearts that they were "healed."
Nor does it explain why a woman like my friend Janie was healed of terminal cancer while rejoicing in her impending death and saying that the Lord had shown her she was going to die. She had no faith to be healed, but she was miraculously healed while others who were claiming their healings died of cancer.
Our theology needs to take in all of scripture, and all of reality, or else it is reduced to wishful thinking, and creating a God who sentiments are pretty much modeled after our own.
You wrote:
Why should we accept this explanation? Where does the book of Job guarantee that what God did to Job He will never do to another man? And if His doing so to Job was useful in teaching certain principles, why would not His doing so in other cases demonstrate the same principles? It would be strange for God to teach principles about reality, in Job's case, that are unique to his case, and are not, therefore, really principles of God's dealings at all. This would be especially confusing if, in Job's case, God was communicating principles that are in fact the opposite of the principles by which God deals with other righteous men. What are those principles?According to theologians like Michael Brown and Greg Boyd, Job was a case of a one time event in history to show that hardship is not so cut and dried.
Satan was only able to harm Job as God permitted it. This is indicated by the protective hedge around Job of which Satan complained. The teaching of scripture would indicate that all righteous people have such a protective hedge (Ps.34:7; Isa.54:17; Luke 10:19; etc.). No harm can penetrate that barrier without God's permission—and we can safely assume that He would never give such permission, except for some good purpose. How does this make any of our situations different from Job's?
In Job's case, God was not obliged to let Satan exercise his free will against Job. God did it for a purpose. According to Job's own understanding, it was "When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold" (23:10). How would this be different in any of our cases? Didn't Peter affirm this as a general rule in 1 Peter 1:7? The principles taught in Job's case are affirmed as general principles in the rest of scripture.There are variables we don't understand, and to reduce it down to God not wanting to heal, or a person is at fault for that lack of healing, is not a correct way to judge any one circumstance. The free will actions of men and angels (spirit beings) play a role in what we experience as reality. (Daniel 10:13)
You say that He does not, but He does when He wants to (hence, Satan's complaint—Job 1:10). When God chooses not to protect ,and to allow harm to come to His people, this failure to defend is not His default, but is for some special purpose. His purposes are good, whether they are comfortable for us or not.We are victims of a fallen world where the free actions of men and angels (spirit beings) influence our reality. To me, it is God's highest desire to always restore and make whole. But God does not seem to trump all reality with an iron fist and ram rod his way blowing up the choices of free agents (man or angelic).
As you said, God wants to restore all things. However, He takes a longer view of the process than we do—and has different priorities. To Him, curing our sin is more important that our immediate comfort. We tend to have the opposite sentiments. He is working on the long cure, while we think He should be interested in the immediate relief. When this is so, we can see what He meant in saying His thoughts are not our thoughts.
Or blame nobody, and accept the fact that sickness is a part of life—for believers and unbelievers—and that it is one of the things God can use to bring about His purposes. People who blame God for doing what they disapprove of are hardly Christians. A Christian is one who has repented of placing himself above God, and does not posture himself as God's judge.Travis—
You seem to implying that I believe that all will get healed. I have tried to make clear that I don't believe this. But I won't lay the blame at God's feet and implicate Him in bringing forth sickness and disease. Most any christian hearing your view point on this will either blame God, or blame themselves for the pain and sickness they find themselves in.
You recognize that God does not heal everyone. Good. We agree on this point. Do you believe that God could heal whomever He wishes? If you do not, then we disagree. The man at the pool had no faith, and no knowledge of who Jesus was. Jesus healed him unilaterally. He also healed Janie, despite her total lack of faith or desire to be healed. Can God do this in a few cases, but would find Himself incapable of doing it in every other case? Who do you think is capable of thwarting Him?
If you agree with scripture that 1) not all are healed, and 2) God can heal whomever He chooses; then does it not follow that those whom He does not choose to heal remain ill for His purposes? If not, then you would appear to believe that God heals some and not others for no purpose at all. This paints a portrait of a merely capricious deity.
If God leaves some people sick for His own good purpose (whom He could heal), does it not follow that His purpose is served by their illness? If so, what would prevent His imposing the illness in the first place?
People who abandon the faith because of God's doing things they did not appreciate, or with which they do not agree, resemble John the Baptist questioning Christ's credentials because He was not doing what John thought the Messiah ought to do—namely, get John out of jail. Jesus' words to John are applicable to all—"Blessed is he who is not stumbled by me."—Travis
Jesus did not walk around healing indiscriminately. (John 5:19) Acts 10:38 tells us that all that came to him were healed. Jesus responded to the Father's direction and to the faith of people coming in expectancy. The men I referenced to you, Greg Boyd, Michael Brown, and especially Craig Keener, are hardly wild eyed faith healing weirdos. They are devout scholars that have examined the whole of scripture and have a very different theology than you on this point. They can answer all of you objections without compromising the consistency of scripture, but it seems your experience and deductive reasoning won't be trumped by another view point, even if it has scriptural basis and a fair minded approach to healing. I'm really not sure what your pastor advice would be to a grieving mother if her child was born with spina bifida. Would it be, "God did this to your child because he is trying to teach you something, so rejoice because everything God does is good". Or in my case, maybe I should quit my medical practice in treating people because I am undoing what God has done, and God is trying to teach my sick patients a lesson, and I am working against God in do so. It is this simple to me, God looks like Jesus (Heb 1:3). Any other portrait of God requires we re-examine it, through the lens of the cross. Leap frogging over Jesus to get to a different portrait of God is an injustice to God's beauty and majesty. You may not think so Steve, but many, many Christians have abandoned the faith because the way Jesus is portrayed, looks more like Al Capone.
Your post above makes it sound as if I have accused these scholars of being wild and irresponsible, which I have not. You also write as if, since I do not agree with these three men's opinions (against the historic view of the whole church, and what I see plainly affirmed in scripture) then I am somehow being obstinate.
I don't know how much you know about me, but it is not one of my views that I am obligated to agree with any particular theologian, no matter what others may think of him. I like all the men you named. I also like lots of other theologians, who would disagree with them. I never count the noses or take a vote from the theologians in order to decide what to believe. If you do, then you have that liberty. However, I am no more to be viewed as unusually obstinate for sticking with the orthodox biblical viewpoint, than they are to be accused of obstinacy for their rejecting it.
You seem amazed that I take the historic Christian position about a subject so frequently discussed in scripture. If you disagree, then disagree. But what is so surprising about my not following trendy, novel theology?