Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?

[selah]

Paidion wrote

Sue Ann, God certainly wants the rest of us to be moved to compassion. But do you really think He wants some people to suffer for that reason?

Paidion, of course I do not mean the word "want" in a mean, sadistic manner, but more in the manner that God the Father took "pleasure" in Jesus' suffering at the cross.

Believe me, there is a burden in my soul for the suffering ones so I would not want to misrepresent our Lord's lovingkindness. Please help me understand HIM more accurately.

Paidion wrote

I think as TK does, that people are suffering from each other as a result of their fallen nature, and they suffer from disease and natural calamities because nature fell along with man. God does sometimes intervene, and heals disease as well as saves people from the ravages of natural phenomena --- but this is rare.

I agree with you and TK on this too, but is this the ONLY reason for suffering? or could there be several reasons? I'm just asking, not cemented in any one conviction.

Paidion wrote

We read in the Bible of God's intervention in all of the above, and it seems there are quite a few cases recorded. But we must remember that Bible history spans many centuries and extends to many countries. There was a tendency for the writers to have recorded the cases in which God did intervene. There must have been thousands of times as many cases in which He did not intervene. But these were usually ignored by the writers. And so it is in our day. We hear Christians report God's marvelous intervention to deliver His people, but few tell of the many times they have prayed for God to do something, and He seemingly did nothing.

I appreciate your perspective as I consider the proportion of time-span verses the relatively few interventions. Although God may not intervene often throughout the multitude of opportunities in which HE is sought, I still want to trust in HIS soverienty. I am sure you agree in this trust. How else can we believe in HIS promises if we do not see the examples in the Bible as "proof" that what HE did for someone else, HE in HIS soveriegnty may do for us, for you, or for your aunt? Hopefully, you and your aunt remained in faith to HIM through her painful ordeal. I am so sad that she suffered and died. I hope she died peacefully and I pray that you are at peace with that situation. When I was recently sick, I thought that I might die. I had a close call or two and in my submission to HIS will during the first "close call," in that very moment, HE brought to my awareness that which turned out to help me to live! It was incredible to see the hand of God guide me this last month, going before me in my affliction to make a way out of it. However, at the time I did not know I would get out of it. In HIS soveriegnty, I was not spared suffering--but death. I am a new woman in May 2009. Something happened to me in April that changed me, I pray for the better and forever. Thank you for your prayers that you said you would pray--and thank you for writing me now about this subject. It seems that through my short ten years with the LORD Jesus Christ, I have visited and re-visited the subject of suffering at least three significant time periods, this being the fourth.

Selah*

[steve]

This is not directed to any one person, in particular. It only reflects some of the thoughts in my head when I awoke this morning.

It occurred to me today that many of the problems we have in explaining sufferings in this world come of our insistence upon being philosophers, rather than soldiers. It is a gratifying enterprise to indulge in philosophical speculations, seeking satisfying answers to perplexing conundrums. However, we can never indulge in this luxury at the expense of our soldiery. In biblical times, as now, it may have been legitimate for the warriors in the trenches to contemplate the minds of angels and gods, but only so long as doing so did not distract them from their principal duties.

In the kingdom of God, the soldiers have, it seems to me, two overarching duties— patriotism, which is the unquestioning love of their King, and heroism (which we are more likely to refer to as "faith"), which puts complete trust in the wisdom of the King, and sacrifices all in the belief that His orders are flawless. Some little children that I have known, in defending their parents against the criticisms of other children, have been known to exhibit these traits.

When we feel compelled to question or to reinterpret the plain words of the King so as to make them agree more with our existing gut feelings, or when we suggest that some actions of our King may justly inspire rebellion in those who suffer at His hands, we give evidence of slippage from our basic loyalties. Of course, if the common understanding of some statement in scripture has never made any sense, there is good reason to question whether we have been grasping its true meaning. But when the orthodox and unambiguous meaning of a text has admirably served the needs of God's soldiers in the battle for millennia, but has simply fallen out of sync with modern sympathies, there should be no embarrassment in standing for what Jesus and His saints have said all along—and which has never been shown to be deficient in the time of need.

The lessons of the book of Job have continued to inform the experiences of the saints through the centuries, in the lives of Joseph, of David, of the prophets, and of the apostles (James 5:10-11). These truths continued to be counted on through the age of the Christian martyrs, as well as the revolutionary eras of the Reformation and the Radical Reformation. Loyal soldiers have always taken Peter's exhortation to "think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you" as their marching orders, and have found grace in their sufferings, such as is little imagined by those who do not suffer or who suffer without faith.

In my own few trials, of the past forty years serving Jesus, I have always counted on the teachings of the Word of God about suffering and trials—to good advantage! To attempt, theologically, to extricate God's hand from our sufferings may satisfy certain sensitivities regarding our preferred view of God, but it can never meet with the plainest statements of scripture on the subject. I am personally convinced that no one ever suffered so valiantly and profitably for their King as those who gladly accepted the truths that God's word declares, which so many in our time find unsavory.

[selah]

Steve, over the past eight years, I have learned a great deal from you regarding the issue of suffering. Several of your teaching "tapes" (MP3s now) have helped me. The series that I remember the best was "The Word of Faith." I didn't realize I would be learning about suffering by listening to that series, but it turned out to satisfy some questions that remained after hearing other teachings. Through the years of listening, reading, praying and writing about suffering, I have come to view suffering as follows. Correct me if I am wrong, but I see Biblical foundation for (1) suffering at the direct hand of God through discipline, chastizement, scourgings or (2) suffering as a result of evil or (3) suffering as a result of ones own foolish, flesh-driven choices. Of course, I would also say that suffering occurs because we live in a fallen world, but I think that the three listed reasons above would fall under the basic premise of being in this fallen world.

Steve wrote

It occurred to me today that many of the problems we have in explaining sufferings in this world come of our insistence upon being philosophers, rather than soldiers.

Whenever you say or write something, I have a tendency to line up my mental tape measure and see if I'm in line with you. So I checked myself to see if I'm thinking like a soldier or a philosopher. I've spent a great deal of my life floundering in the latter, but when I checked my last few posts of this thread, I honestly believe that I am looking at suffering from a soldier perspective, as this quote from yesterday's post demonstrates: selah wrote:

Although God may not intervene often throughout the multitude of opportunities in which HE is sought, I still want to trust in HIS soverienty. I am sure you agree in this trust. How else can we believe in HIS promises if we do not see the examples in the Bible as "proof" that what HE did for someone else, HE in HIS soveriegnty may do for us...

Now, if you see any lack of trust in me, I stand ready to listen to correction. Not that I have the corner market on trust! I pray for more every day. So anyway, while I heard you say that your words were not directed toward any one person, I still consider your words and check myself. Now, this next quote of mine definitely needs refinement. You will find it below yours.

Steve wrote:

When we feel compelled to question or to reinterpret the plain words of the King so as to make them agree more with our existing gut feelings, or when we suggest that some actions of our King may justly inspire rebellion in those who suffer at His hands, we give evidence of slippage from our basic loyalties. Of course, if the common understanding of some statement in scripture has never made any sense, there is good reason to question whether we have been grasping its true meaning. But when the orthodox and unambiguous meaning of a text has admirably served the needs of God's soldiers in the battle for millennia, but has simply fallen out of sync with modern sympathies, there should be no embarrassment in standing for what Jesus and His saints have said all along—and which has never been shown to be deficient in the time of need.

Selah wrote

Although I don't have Biblical texts to back me up, my inclination is to believe that God wants some people to suffer so the rest of us will be moved to compassion.

Steve, in your quote above you mentioned "existing gut feelings." My quote immediately above is, I admit, a gut feeling based upon current considerations of the compassionate outpouring from my fellowship. My quote is overstated, admittedly, but I've been struggling from day one on this thead to articulate the question so it reflects the direction of my inquiry. You see, a few people from my fellowship have noticed changes in them too as a result of this past month, things that were attributed only to walking in compassion within my suffering. So, I began to wonder what the LORD wants to do in the lives of benevolent, giving, sacrificially giving Christians when they reach out to someone in need. This is not about me, but about the wonderful family of God that I belong with and their admittance to their own changed lives.

What about their compassion brought change to them? Was it their compassion or something else? I would like the compassion of Jesus to reach far beyond my corner of the world, yet the Lord has brought HIS compassion to me this past month--literally from local brothers and sisters and from at least three different various places around the world. Can you see why I am amazed at the benevolence of God working through HIS church?

Steve wrote

The lessons of the book of Job have continued to inform the experiences of the saints through the centuries, in the lives of Joseph, of David, of the prophets, and of the apostles (James 5:10-11). These truths continued to be counted on through the age of the Christian martyrs, as well as the revolutionary eras of the Reformation and the Radical Reformation. Loyal soldiers have always taken Peter's exhortation to "think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you" as their marching orders, and have found grace in their sufferings, such as is little imagined by those who do not suffer or who suffer without faith.

In the month of April, I had cause to consider the "fiery trial which is to try you" and I always remembered the teachings that you taught me through my listening to your MP3s. I never once--through this past trial--felt bitter toward God. I don't boast that from myself, but only because I trusted in the words of God that (a) I was either in spiritual warfare or (b) I had brought this upon myself or (c) my Father was scourging me. In this matter, I honestly feel it was part b and c. Further, in that scourging, I never thought HE did not love me; I felt HIS gentle lovingkindness. When I prayed, I 'heard' him never cruel, but reproving and correcting, taking me to the edge of life and teaching me things for my own good. I cannot feel bitter at my LORD for this. Perhaps I needed such suffering... Regardless the reason or the end, I told the LORD that I would use my life, be in a day or a decade, to speak of HIS love and my trust in HIS sovereignty. Every day there were some small and some large miracles set before me that brought me life through the shadow of death. I was amazed at the timing of God to afflict me and in the same day, sometimes in the same moment, provide a way through it.

Steve wrote

In my own few trials, of the past forty years serving Jesus, I have always counted on the teachings of the Word of God about suffering and trials—to good advantage! To attempt, theologically, to extricate God's hand from our sufferings may satisfy certain sensitivities regarding our preferred view of God, but it can never meet with the plainest statements of scripture on the subject. I am personally convinced that no one ever suffered so valiantly and profitably for their King as those who gladly accepted the truths that God's word declares, which so many in our time find unsavory.

My trials have been relatively few too. This past month has, I hope, changed me for HIS good purposes, forever. I am still wondering about the benevolence of the family of God, and how our Father changes His children while they help the suffering member within the body of Christ. Obviously too, I am eternally grateful to my brothers and sisters abroad and at home who helped me!

[steve]

Hi Selah,

First, nothing in your posts caused me to feel the need to write anything by way of correction. In fact, I am agreeable with everything you said.

Second, I apologize that I never addressed your original question about whether our trial may be for the benefit of other Christians, to make them compassionate. I have not heard my lectures, recently, on "Making Sense of Suffering"—and in the several times I have taught that series, I sometimes include or exclude points differently than at other times. Therefore, I don't know if I addressed your point in my posted lectures or not. In my notes, I have listed quite a number of possible reasons for God allowing our particular trials. One of the suggestions I have in my notes (and have sometimes included in my lectures) is that our sufferings may indeed be the means by which other Christians are tested (I have not considered that they might be improved as well, though that would be equally possible). It seems to me that the plight of the beggar Lazarus at the rich man's gate served as a test of the latter man's generosity—a matter in which his failure seems to have counted against him after death.

Third, it is refreshing to hear your testimony, and your attitude in your suffering. It is sad to think that some would deprive you of the blessing in it by removing any divine purpose from your trials.

Fourth, you listed three causes of suffering. I would also recognize three causes, but with one modification. I believe any suffering I may endure will come as a result of either:

1) God's loving discipline for my improvement (you included this);
2) The enemy's malice toward me as one of God's children, allowed by God for my testing (you also included this); or
3) Merely suffering the natural consequences of living in a fallen world, and God choosing to allow me to endure some of that for His own reasons. In this third category, I would include many organic illnesses, suffering from natural disasters, accidents, criminal violence, etc. If God permits me to suffer in any of these ways, my theology (the only theology Christianity has ever known in history, in fact) tells me that there is a loving God quite capable of intervening to protect me, and that His lack of intervention is due to His own purposes, rather than the presence of another force in the universe that can overpower Him.

Your third suggestion ("suffering as a result of ones own foolish, flesh-driven choices") seems to me to be a sub-category of the first.

[Paidion]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see Biblical foundation for (1) suffering at the direct hand of God through discipline, chastizement, scourgings or (2) suffering as a result of evil or (3) suffering as a result of ones own foolish, flesh-driven choices.

SueAnn, I think your "Biblical foundation for suffering" is excellent!

The Biblical foundation for the first one is perhaps the following:

Hebrews 12:6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."

God's very purpose of the ages is to bring everyone into a place of complete submission to him, and into a total relationship of mutual love. God will do whatever it takes to bring a person into that relationship. For some His severe mercy, may be much more severe than for others. So surely He will discipline His own children with the view of completing the "good work" which He began in them, that they may become conformed to the image of Christ.

Of course, God doesn't discipline us by "cruel and unusual punishment" any more than a wise father or mother would his or her children. God doesn't discipline his children by sending someone to rape them, or torture them or kill them or torture them forever in the Lake of Fire, just as a parent doesn't discipline his child by beating him black and blue, and breaking his arms, or applying a red hot poker to him. Such "discipline" is known as "child abuse". It is difficult for me to understand how some can think that the Heavenly Father is more cruel than a loving earthly father.

Your second one, "Suffering as a result of evil" has prevailed in the world for thousands of years. Many innocent people have suffered excruciatingly from the hands of the wicked, or from demonic forces. Wartime prisoners have been tortured to obtain "confessions", evil men have tortured and raped women and little girls, Christians (and others) have been beheaded, burnt at stake, and crucified, etc.,etc. It deeply disturbs me when some people state that such horrendous, hideous, acts have their origin in the will of God, whether His "active will" or His "permissive will". People who ascribe either a "higher purpose" for God's active causation of such heinous acts, or a "higher purpose" for God's failure to intervene, at most seem to blaspheme the God of Love or at least seem to exhibit a very low view of His loving character!

Your third one, "Suffering as a result of ones own foolish, flesh-driven choices" is also as old as mankind itself. This suffering is usually the natural consequence of such choices, and is rarely directly imposed upon the wrongdoer by God Himself. Of course, we can exhibit many Scriptural cases in which God did bring suffering upon the wrongdoer. But there are doubtless far more cases in which He didn't, but which are not recorded as such in the Bible.

There is perhaps a fourth reason for suffering, and that is from the "natural" consequences of fallen nature. Thus people suffer from earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, lightning, forest fires, vicious animals, killer bees, cancer, excruciating tooth aches as a result of tooth decay, etc. On the other hand, this fourth one could be subsumed under your second category, if these natural events are regarded as "evil" resulting from the fall of nature itself.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Your second one, "Suffering as a result of evil" has prevailed in the world for thousands of years. Many innocent people have suffered excruciatingly from the hands of the wicked, or from demonic forces. Wartime prisoners have been tortured to obtain "confessions", evil men have tortured and raped women and little girls, Christians (and others) have been beheaded, burnt at stake, and crucified, etc.,etc. It deeply disturbs me when some people state that such horrendous, hideous, acts have their origin in the will of God, whether His "active will" or His "permissive will". People who ascribe either a "higher purpose" for God's active causation of such heinous acts, or a "higher purpose" for God's failure to intervene, at most seem to blaspheme the God of Love or at least seem to exhibit a very low view of His loving character!

And you wrote:

There is perhaps a fourth reason for suffering, and that is from the "natural" consequences of fallen nature. Thus people suffer from earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, lightning, forest fires, vicious animals, killer bees, cancer, excruciating tooth aches as a result of tooth decay, etc.

I am trying to understand your position. In the first quote I have underlined acts of man that you listed. I assume you are looking at this from an open-theist position? When you say that you are disturbed by the thinking that these acts of men were allowed by God's "permissive will", are you thinking God was unaware that the acts might occur, or that He was unable to foresee them and thus unable to prevent them? Or that He was powerless to prevent them regardless of whether He could "predict" them or not? It seems to me that if God could have prevented them and did not, then they indeed occured within His permissive will. Or perhaps He was "asleep at the wheel".

In the second quote you have listed some "natural" causes of suffering. Would they be any different regarding God's ability to foresee them? Are you thinking God can not foresee a natural event such as an earthquake of lightning strike and prevent it, or somehow cause a person to be in a place of safety?

[steve]

Paidion,

I suggest you read our previous dialogue on the same subject to refresh your memory about the loose ends in your theology that you left untied (http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &sk=t&sd=a). In your most recent post, you wrote:

People who ascribe either a "higher purpose" for God's active causation of such heinous acts, or a "higher purpose" for God's failure to intervene, at most seem to blaspheme the God of Love or at least seem to exhibit a very low view of His loving character!

From this we must deduce that you believe one or more of the following propositions:

a) God does not see evil acts that are about to occur (even though any mere human in the right position to do so would see them plainly enough);

b) God sees them, and wants to prevent them, but has no ability to dispatch angels or other means of protection for the potential victims (contra innumerable promises that God has given His people);

c) God does have both the awareness (a) and the ability (b) to intervene and does not do so—but He has no "higher purpose" for His choice of non-intervention (meaning either that God's choices are purposeless, or else motivated by low purposes).

Your statement above may be affirming all three (or any combination) of these propositions, but it cannot deny all three of them. Are there any of them that you would wish to deny? Usually you are very rational in your arguments, except when this particular subject comes up. It seems that, when something as emotional as this topic arises, you see yourself as independent of divine revelation, speaking without any scripture as your authority, and you do so in denial of the whole counsel of scripture on the topic. I know that, at times like this, your wont is to say "I have Jesus as my authority, not the Bible." However, Jesus believed in the Bible, and He even unambiguously affirmed in His teaching every point in my thesis.

I think your entire thesis rests upon the sentiment that inflicting pain and suffering as a redemptive tool upon rebellious children is below the dignity of Christ, and therefore of God. Yet Christ says the opposite about Himself (Rev.3:19), and other scriptures state the opposite about the Father (Prov.3:12/ Heb.12:6). I know that your rejoinder is that you actually do affirm God's loving discipline—but you draw the line at such extreme suffering as rape, murder, etc. What I want to know is how you know where to draw the line, since in your reasoning you remain entirely aloof from any divine revelation on the topic. You use emotional language, like "child abuse," apparently expecting us to allow a child to be the one who determines whether his discipline is excessive or appropriate. No child has an adult's perspective to understand the necessity or degree of discipline that is called for. Likewise, no human has as much knowledge as has God with regard to what kind of suffering is appropriate to bring about eternal restoration and healing.

It is dangerous to appeal to the example of Jesus in order to trump both the Old and the New Testaments—especially when you have to ignore a considerable portion of Jesus' own teachings in the process.

[darinhouston]

This is not directed to any one person, in particular. It only reflects some of the thoughts in my head when I awoke this morning.

It occurred to me today that ....

Steve, that was truly beautiful and inspirational ! (as usual)

[Paidion]

I am trying to understand your position. In the first quote I have underlined acts of man that you listed. I assume you are looking at this from an open-theist position?

No.

When you say that you are disturbed by the thinking that these acts of men were allowed by God's "permissive will", are you thinking God was unaware that the acts might occur, or that He was unable to foresee them and thus unable to prevent them?

No.

Or that He was powerless to prevent them regardless of whether He could "predict" them or not?

No.

It seems to me that if God could have prevented them and did not, then they indeed occured within His permissive will.

No. There is no such thing as His "permissive will".

Or perhaps He was "asleep at the wheel".

No.

In the second quote you have listed some "natural" causes of suffering. Would they be any different regarding God's ability to foresee them?

There is a difference between events which result from a chain of causation and those which result from choices of free will agents.

Are you thinking God can not foresee a natural event such as an earthquake of lightning strike and prevent it, or somehow cause a person to be in a place of safety?

No.

[Suzana]

No. There is no such thing as His "permissive will".

One can say that till the cows come home, but the fact remains that

God created this world
God created free-will agents
God has chosen not to put a stop to anything that has already happened - i.e. He allowed all events to happen as they did

so for all practical purposes, to insist that there is no such thing as God's permissive will is I think merely a matter of semantics.