the teaching below addresses some of the things being discussed here:
the purpose of prayer pt 2 of 6
TK
Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
Hi Paidion,
I will respond to as many of your points as my time will allow. You wrote:
Fortunately, the Bible actually presents a solution that is not rocket science. It affirms the universal love and the unlimited power of God, and also accounts for the existence of suffering. However, it requires that we not settle for the truncated set of options in the standard paradigm. I would restate the case as follows:
1.There is evil in the world.
2. God does not always choose to prevent it.
3. Therefore either He lacks the power to do so, or He lacks the love to do so,—OR ELSE, since He lacks neither in love nor in power, we must conclude that...
4. since God is both all-loving and all-powerful, He must be allowing suffering for purposes that are consistent with His perfect love.
The fourth point (which you left out, leaving yourself with a false dichotomy and only unacceptable choices) is exactly what the scripture teaches, and it is precisely what anyone who knew the God of the Bible as their loving and all-powerful Father would have deduced, with or without direct scriptural teaching on the subject.
Your thesis begins with the observation that God does not prevent evil (though, you somehow do not want this fact to involve His permitting it). Then you say He allows evil to occur unhindered because He wishes to honor man’s free will (that is, the free will of the perpetrators, not of the victims!).
Of course, this only deals with the portion of human suffering that is caused by the malice of other individuals, and leaves out entirely why God does not interfere with tsunamis (don’t tell me that He can’t interrupt the laws of nature. Jesus and the Old Testament bear too eloquent a testimony against that suggestion).
But let us take your favorite example: the rape and murder of a child. In your last post to me, you admit (as we all must) that “it is the case that God is omnipotent, and has the power to intervene" (your own words). We could add to this, that God not only has the power to intervene, but has a history of intervening in such matters whenever it has been His will to do so (as per, the extensive biblical history of divine deliverances).
So we have to begin by agreeing on the point that, if God chose to do so, He could easily prevent a little girl from being raped (God and His angels are bigger and stronger than any rapist). Next question: why does God sometimes choose not to intervene, when it is in His power to do so?
Your answer: God honors free will. But certainly the outcome is not according to the victim’s free will! What theological precommitment makes you say that God has to honor the will of one party and not the equally free will of the other party?
One thing that you apparently cannot bear to hear is that God’s decision NOT to intervene (like all of His decisions about everything else) is based upon His love for all the parties concerned (this would be my contention). You insist that anyone with common sense could see that God is not doing a loving thing in allowing such criminal acts. However, while you do not wish to say God takes the course He takes out of love for humans, you have no problem asserting that He does what He does out of His love for a concept—free will!
So, in your view, God (who could intervene, but chooses not to do so) is heartlessly sacrificing the welfare of a child to a principle that God seemingly values more than He values the child’s own well-being—the sovereign free will of the perpetrator. Apparently, the free will of the perp is so sacred to God, that He will even sacrifice the wills of the little girl, her family, and the whole outraged community for that one man’s free will! Brother, you need to re-think your theology on this from square one! You seem to have a god who is able to partially protect and to fulfill a few of His promises to His children—so long as no bad people wish for things to go otherwise! Such a god is hardly large enough to fill a large shirt; the God of scripture fills the universe.
Since you allow that God does discipline His children painfully, at times, I asked where you draw the line as to what degree of suffering God may or may not inflict. Your answer was no real answer at all. You wrote:
When is extreme pain, inflicted by a father upon his son, "child abuse"?
When the frontier father had no choice but to saw off a son's limb, without anesthesia, in order to prevent the spreading of gangrene—was that "child abuse"?
When I gave permission for the doctors to re-break my son's broken arm, in order to set it properly—was that "child abuse"?
When the Father subjected Jesus to the torture of the cross—was that "child abuse"?
You say you draw the line where any sensible person would draw it, but, as it turns out, you draw no clear line at all. You have provided no working definition of "child abuse"—the emotionally-charged word you use to overthrow the plain teachings of scripture.
I will give you my definition of child abuse. Abuse occurs when unnecessary pain and suffering (of any degree) are inflicted upon a child without a mind to bringing about a greater and necessary good.
Do parents stab their children with knives? Not unless those parents are surgeons seeking to remove cancerous tumors from their children.
Do they break their bones? Not unless they deem it necessary for the child's long-term welfare.
Do they stand-by and allow tormentors to taunt, strike and bully their children? Perhaps, if the Father is a training officer in charge of toughening-up his special forces son to withstand abuse if taken prisoner by the enemy.
On the other hand, to maliciously tease and deprive a child of a toy that is continuously offered and then pulled back from him may be a genuine case of "child abuse." Your definition of child abuse has no foundation in reality, and thus provides no foundation to bear the theological freight that you are loading upon it.
You asked (probably rhetorically):
I do not necessarily call the loss a "discipline"—in the sense of punishment for any wrongdoing, since I am not aware of any wrongdoing for which I deserved punishment—but I received the loss as an instance of God's will for my life being revealed through His allowing circumstances which might readily have prevented.
This is the promise of scripture, and it is the basis of all of our peace in a chaotic world.
As Keith Green put it, "If you love the Lord, you will love His will for you; instead of questions "Why?", there'll be praise for all He brings you through." I find too many people who claim to love God, but who do not easily embrace His revealed will for them. Go figure! What does it mean to love and trust God, if we only do these things when He does precisely what we want Him to do?
I said that Jesus affirmed every one of my basic propositions in this discussion. You said you were not aware of it. Though I find it difficult to believe you genuinely can’t think of the relevant verses, I will provide a few examples, as you requested. The propositions we are discussing are the following:
Proposition 1: God has the power to intervene in human circumstances at will; This means that He can intervene to protect His people when they are in danger;
Proposition 2: We never need to worry about our safety or well-being, because our loving Father is attentive to every detail of our circumstances;
Proposition 3: Therefore, when God allows us to suffer (i.e., when He does not prevent our suffering, which He could have done), we should accept this as “the cup that the Father has given” to us, knowing that all of His decisions are purposeful and loving—intended for our good and the benefit of His other children.
The third proposition is the one you flatly deny, though it is the irresistible conclusion of the previous two, which I do not think you wish to deny. Jesus, of course, accepted the consistent Old Testament teaching on this subject, but He made His own declarations as well:
John 18:11
So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"
John 19:11
Jesus answered [to Pilate], "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above.”
In the above two verses, we find that Jesus viewed His own sufferings as a cup given to Him by His Father. It was not God's honoring of the free will of the Jews or of Pilate that explains the suffering of Christ. It was the will of His Father that He suffer. "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him." Pilate and others would have no ability to do Jesus any harm, if the Father had not purposefully delivered Jesus to them.
Now, before anyone is tempted to make the really stupid suggestion that Christ’s sufferings were not like our own in this respect, because He had a unique mission, I would point out that the sufferings of Christians are said to be a continuation of Christ’s sufferings (Col.1:24), and that we are called of God to suffer as a major part of our mission on earth, just as He was. “As He is, so are we in this world” (1 John 4:17). Our sufferings are no less the will of God than were His.
The same ability of the Father to send twelve legions of angels (Matt.26:53), inheres in the case of our own sufferings. The angels are, after all, given charge over us as well (Ps.34:7/91:11-12/Heb.1:14).
Without a doubt, Jesus’ theology about His own suffering should inform our theology about our own—as Jesus taught elsewhere:
Matt. 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.
Luke 12:7
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
Because we are worth more than sparrows, Jesus taught that God’s care will be upon us no less than it is upon them. Yet, not one sparrow dies unless it is “your Father’s will.” I’m afraid there is no way to get around this one. If a sparrow dies, it only happens within the will of God. How much more, then, when a child or a Christian dies?
It will not do to say, “Well, it is within the general will of God that all sparrows (and all people) die at some point, but that does not speak to the specific circumstances that cause the death of individual sparrows or people”—because that misses the precise point that Jesus is making. He is not giving a general theology lesson about the inevitability of death in the fallen world. He is giving a pastoral encouragement to men who are being sent into dangerous circumstances, and telling them that God will be as attentive of their needs (down to the last hair) as He is to every fragile sparrow. A general statement about the death of all creatures would have no place in His discussion. He is affirming the individualized care of the Father over even the most inconsequential of creatures, in order to convince the disciples that their safety as individuals is 100% in the care of their Father.
Obviously, the teaching of Jesus on this matter is simply a part of the fabric of the whole of the Bible on the subject. Since I suspect that you did not look up the verses I gave in my earlier post (since you made no effort to respond to them), I will paste them below, in the context of my original post, in which they appeared, to bring them back to your attention.
I will respond to as many of your points as my time will allow. You wrote:
And your solution? I assume that you affirm the perfect love of God for mankind, as well as the existence of evil in the world. Your only expedient would seem to be to conclude that the presence of suffering is inconsistent with God's love, unless He is powerless to prevent it. Yet, when pressed, you admit elsewhere (in your last post to me) that God would be able to prevent suffering, because He is omnipotent. Thus you have no solution to "the problem of suffering.".The problem is evil is stated as follows:
1.There is evil in the world.
2. God does not prevent it.
3. Therefore either He lacks the power to do so, or He lacks the love to do so.
Your solution seems to be that He lacks the love to do so.
Fortunately, the Bible actually presents a solution that is not rocket science. It affirms the universal love and the unlimited power of God, and also accounts for the existence of suffering. However, it requires that we not settle for the truncated set of options in the standard paradigm. I would restate the case as follows:
1.There is evil in the world.
2. God does not always choose to prevent it.
3. Therefore either He lacks the power to do so, or He lacks the love to do so,—OR ELSE, since He lacks neither in love nor in power, we must conclude that...
4. since God is both all-loving and all-powerful, He must be allowing suffering for purposes that are consistent with His perfect love.
The fourth point (which you left out, leaving yourself with a false dichotomy and only unacceptable choices) is exactly what the scripture teaches, and it is precisely what anyone who knew the God of the Bible as their loving and all-powerful Father would have deduced, with or without direct scriptural teaching on the subject.
Your thesis begins with the observation that God does not prevent evil (though, you somehow do not want this fact to involve His permitting it). Then you say He allows evil to occur unhindered because He wishes to honor man’s free will (that is, the free will of the perpetrators, not of the victims!).
Of course, this only deals with the portion of human suffering that is caused by the malice of other individuals, and leaves out entirely why God does not interfere with tsunamis (don’t tell me that He can’t interrupt the laws of nature. Jesus and the Old Testament bear too eloquent a testimony against that suggestion).
But let us take your favorite example: the rape and murder of a child. In your last post to me, you admit (as we all must) that “it is the case that God is omnipotent, and has the power to intervene" (your own words). We could add to this, that God not only has the power to intervene, but has a history of intervening in such matters whenever it has been His will to do so (as per, the extensive biblical history of divine deliverances).
So we have to begin by agreeing on the point that, if God chose to do so, He could easily prevent a little girl from being raped (God and His angels are bigger and stronger than any rapist). Next question: why does God sometimes choose not to intervene, when it is in His power to do so?
Your answer: God honors free will. But certainly the outcome is not according to the victim’s free will! What theological precommitment makes you say that God has to honor the will of one party and not the equally free will of the other party?
One thing that you apparently cannot bear to hear is that God’s decision NOT to intervene (like all of His decisions about everything else) is based upon His love for all the parties concerned (this would be my contention). You insist that anyone with common sense could see that God is not doing a loving thing in allowing such criminal acts. However, while you do not wish to say God takes the course He takes out of love for humans, you have no problem asserting that He does what He does out of His love for a concept—free will!
So, in your view, God (who could intervene, but chooses not to do so) is heartlessly sacrificing the welfare of a child to a principle that God seemingly values more than He values the child’s own well-being—the sovereign free will of the perpetrator. Apparently, the free will of the perp is so sacred to God, that He will even sacrifice the wills of the little girl, her family, and the whole outraged community for that one man’s free will! Brother, you need to re-think your theology on this from square one! You seem to have a god who is able to partially protect and to fulfill a few of His promises to His children—so long as no bad people wish for things to go otherwise! Such a god is hardly large enough to fill a large shirt; the God of scripture fills the universe.
Since you allow that God does discipline His children painfully, at times, I asked where you draw the line as to what degree of suffering God may or may not inflict. Your answer was no real answer at all. You wrote:
One of the loose ends that you left "untied" in our other discussion (at the other thread to which I keep referring— http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &sk=t&sd=a ) was the settling of this very point.Rather my entire thesis rests on the fact that God is LOVE, and that love can be tough and can cause pain --- just as is the case with a human father. But just as a loving human father doesn’t discipline his children by breaking their bones or stabbing them with a knife, so the heavenly Father doesn’t discipline His children by sending rapists, murderers, and torturers to abuse them...I draw the line where any sensible person draws it. Everyone knows the difference between a father disciplining his children by spanking, or limiting their movements or denying them privileges, as opposed to the child abuse I described above. Are you incapable of seeing the difference?
When is extreme pain, inflicted by a father upon his son, "child abuse"?
When the frontier father had no choice but to saw off a son's limb, without anesthesia, in order to prevent the spreading of gangrene—was that "child abuse"?
When I gave permission for the doctors to re-break my son's broken arm, in order to set it properly—was that "child abuse"?
When the Father subjected Jesus to the torture of the cross—was that "child abuse"?
You say you draw the line where any sensible person would draw it, but, as it turns out, you draw no clear line at all. You have provided no working definition of "child abuse"—the emotionally-charged word you use to overthrow the plain teachings of scripture.
I will give you my definition of child abuse. Abuse occurs when unnecessary pain and suffering (of any degree) are inflicted upon a child without a mind to bringing about a greater and necessary good.
Do parents stab their children with knives? Not unless those parents are surgeons seeking to remove cancerous tumors from their children.
Do they break their bones? Not unless they deem it necessary for the child's long-term welfare.
Do they stand-by and allow tormentors to taunt, strike and bully their children? Perhaps, if the Father is a training officer in charge of toughening-up his special forces son to withstand abuse if taken prisoner by the enemy.
On the other hand, to maliciously tease and deprive a child of a toy that is continuously offered and then pulled back from him may be a genuine case of "child abuse." Your definition of child abuse has no foundation in reality, and thus provides no foundation to bear the theological freight that you are loading upon it.
You asked (probably rhetorically):
There is an answer to the question, even if it was rhetorical. The truth is, when my second wife was killed, the first words I uttered were, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." In saying, "the Lord takes away," I was speaking my actual theological convictions. I was not just repeating a Christian slogan. When Job said the same words, the Bible tells us that he did not speak wrongly of God.Do you believe God was disciplining you by giving you a promiscuous wife, and “taking” another wife away from you? I don’t believe God had anything to do with either of those matters.
I do not necessarily call the loss a "discipline"—in the sense of punishment for any wrongdoing, since I am not aware of any wrongdoing for which I deserved punishment—but I received the loss as an instance of God's will for my life being revealed through His allowing circumstances which might readily have prevented.
This is the promise of scripture, and it is the basis of all of our peace in a chaotic world.
As Keith Green put it, "If you love the Lord, you will love His will for you; instead of questions "Why?", there'll be praise for all He brings you through." I find too many people who claim to love God, but who do not easily embrace His revealed will for them. Go figure! What does it mean to love and trust God, if we only do these things when He does precisely what we want Him to do?
I said that Jesus affirmed every one of my basic propositions in this discussion. You said you were not aware of it. Though I find it difficult to believe you genuinely can’t think of the relevant verses, I will provide a few examples, as you requested. The propositions we are discussing are the following:
Proposition 1: God has the power to intervene in human circumstances at will; This means that He can intervene to protect His people when they are in danger;
Proposition 2: We never need to worry about our safety or well-being, because our loving Father is attentive to every detail of our circumstances;
Proposition 3: Therefore, when God allows us to suffer (i.e., when He does not prevent our suffering, which He could have done), we should accept this as “the cup that the Father has given” to us, knowing that all of His decisions are purposeful and loving—intended for our good and the benefit of His other children.
The third proposition is the one you flatly deny, though it is the irresistible conclusion of the previous two, which I do not think you wish to deny. Jesus, of course, accepted the consistent Old Testament teaching on this subject, but He made His own declarations as well:
John 18:11
So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"
John 19:11
Jesus answered [to Pilate], "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above.”
In the above two verses, we find that Jesus viewed His own sufferings as a cup given to Him by His Father. It was not God's honoring of the free will of the Jews or of Pilate that explains the suffering of Christ. It was the will of His Father that He suffer. "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him." Pilate and others would have no ability to do Jesus any harm, if the Father had not purposefully delivered Jesus to them.
Now, before anyone is tempted to make the really stupid suggestion that Christ’s sufferings were not like our own in this respect, because He had a unique mission, I would point out that the sufferings of Christians are said to be a continuation of Christ’s sufferings (Col.1:24), and that we are called of God to suffer as a major part of our mission on earth, just as He was. “As He is, so are we in this world” (1 John 4:17). Our sufferings are no less the will of God than were His.
The same ability of the Father to send twelve legions of angels (Matt.26:53), inheres in the case of our own sufferings. The angels are, after all, given charge over us as well (Ps.34:7/91:11-12/Heb.1:14).
Without a doubt, Jesus’ theology about His own suffering should inform our theology about our own—as Jesus taught elsewhere:
Matt. 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.
Luke 12:7
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
Because we are worth more than sparrows, Jesus taught that God’s care will be upon us no less than it is upon them. Yet, not one sparrow dies unless it is “your Father’s will.” I’m afraid there is no way to get around this one. If a sparrow dies, it only happens within the will of God. How much more, then, when a child or a Christian dies?
It will not do to say, “Well, it is within the general will of God that all sparrows (and all people) die at some point, but that does not speak to the specific circumstances that cause the death of individual sparrows or people”—because that misses the precise point that Jesus is making. He is not giving a general theology lesson about the inevitability of death in the fallen world. He is giving a pastoral encouragement to men who are being sent into dangerous circumstances, and telling them that God will be as attentive of their needs (down to the last hair) as He is to every fragile sparrow. A general statement about the death of all creatures would have no place in His discussion. He is affirming the individualized care of the Father over even the most inconsequential of creatures, in order to convince the disciples that their safety as individuals is 100% in the care of their Father.
Obviously, the teaching of Jesus on this matter is simply a part of the fabric of the whole of the Bible on the subject. Since I suspect that you did not look up the verses I gave in my earlier post (since you made no effort to respond to them), I will paste them below, in the context of my original post, in which they appeared, to bring them back to your attention.
Just to throw a slight wrench in here, I think it is not safe to say that God does not stand by and watch cruel crimes take place. If we were to accept this view, then the victims of crimes would have to conclude that God was either not around, or at least, refusing to watch them when they needed Him most, at the time of their victimization. What is the alternative? It seems that the only biblical option is for such victims to believe that God was present, capable of intervening, but willing to let the crime occur anyway! This last option is the one most modern people (including modern Christians) find intolerable. They would even suggest that such a view would turn a victim bitter against God.
However, this was the view of Joseph (Genesis 50:20), and it was the only thing (in my judgment) that prevented him from being bitter—either against God or against his human tormentors. It is certainly the only thing that helped me endure with grace the death of my wife at the hands of a careless driver. I can not be bitter at God for doing His good will at my expense, if I have already gladly surrendered my life and will to be sacrificed on behalf of His wise purposes (is there any other way to be a true Christian than this?). On the other hand, if I were to endure a crisis, and then to conclude that God had not been around at the time (when He has promised to be with me in all such circumstances*), I would have occasion to view Him as a promise-breaker.
If I took the option that God was aware of the danger, but was powerless to prevent it, then I would have to conclude that there may be precious little that He can deliver me from, and I would have to live in insecurity, despite His many promises to take care of everything that would otherwise concern me.
I'll stick with Joseph's view—since it was also the (correct) view of Job (Job 1:20-22), the psalmists (Psalm 119:71, 75), Jesus (John 18:11; 19:11), Paul (2 Cor.12:7-10), and Peter (1 Pet.1:6-7).
* e.g. Deut.33:27; Joshua 1:9/ 1 Sam.2:9/ 2 Chron.16:9 /Ps.34:7; 61:3; 84:11; 91:1-16/ Isa. 41:10; 43:2; 54:16-17/ Matt.28:20/ 1 Pet.3:12-13
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
Steve, I know it takes a lot of time to respond to what one sees as mistaken, and I appreciate the fact that you have done so in view of your full life of service and ministry. I know that it will take me a long time to reply to all of your objections, and am not sure yet if or when I will do so. However, I thought that for now I will reply to your comments on the verse you pose as a clincher for your view that the evil things which happen to a person is God's will, (a view which I strongly deny).
The Greek word is "ανευ" (aneu). The word means "without" and does not have "will" as part of its meaning at all. The word occurs three times in the NT, and your NKJV translates it correctly in the other two instances:
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without (ανευ) a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives.
1 Peter 4:9 Be hospitable to one another without (ανευ) grumbling.
Other translations correctly render "ανευ" as "without" in the clincher verse as well:
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father (ASV)
The following translations also render the word as "without": Rotherham, RWebster, YLT, and Murdoch.
Some translations render the word as "apart from":
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (NRSV)
The ESV and the NASB also render the word as "apart from".
Now to assume that no sparrow shall fall "apart from your Father", means "apart from the will of your Father" is reading one's interpretation into the text. Why could it not mean "apart from the knowledge of your Father"?
Indeed, that's seems to have been exactly the way the author of the children's hymn ("God Sees the Little Sparrow Fall") understood it. The title of his hymn is not "God Wills That the Little Sparrow Falls".
If this were indeed what Christ said, then I would have to concede, and I would not attempt to "get around" it. But I was quite certain that He didn't really say this. I fully expected an incorrect translation when I read it in your post (as quoted from the NKJV), and I found this to be the case, and so it's unnecessary to "get around this one" even if I wanted to, since there's nothing there which needs getting around.Because we are worth more than sparrows, Jesus taught that God’s care will be upon us no less than it is upon them. Yet, not one sparrow dies unless it is “your Father’s will.” I’m afraid there is no way to get around this one. If a sparrow dies, it only happens within the will of God. How much more, then, when a child or a Christian dies?Matt. 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.
The Greek word is "ανευ" (aneu). The word means "without" and does not have "will" as part of its meaning at all. The word occurs three times in the NT, and your NKJV translates it correctly in the other two instances:
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without (ανευ) a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives.
1 Peter 4:9 Be hospitable to one another without (ανευ) grumbling.
Other translations correctly render "ανευ" as "without" in the clincher verse as well:
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father (ASV)
The following translations also render the word as "without": Rotherham, RWebster, YLT, and Murdoch.
Some translations render the word as "apart from":
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (NRSV)
The ESV and the NASB also render the word as "apart from".
Now to assume that no sparrow shall fall "apart from your Father", means "apart from the will of your Father" is reading one's interpretation into the text. Why could it not mean "apart from the knowledge of your Father"?
Indeed, that's seems to have been exactly the way the author of the children's hymn ("God Sees the Little Sparrow Fall") understood it. The title of his hymn is not "God Wills That the Little Sparrow Falls".
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
Hi Paidion,
Fair enough. There are other possible meanings for "without" in the passage. Certainly there are not an infinite number of possibilities. My own take would be that the NKJV rendering, although adding words not found in the Greek text, does not misrepresent the most natural meaning of the phrase as it is being used.
A statement like, "nothing can happen without God," standing without further explanation, would more naturally be taken to mean "nothing can happen without God's involvement" (or, as we might say, "God was in it") than merely meaning "nothing can happen without God's awareness."
I will grant your legitimate right to disagree on such a point of interpretation of this one phrase. However, the whole of the theological argument is where I believe you are in a weak position. I do not require or expect for you to answer every point I have made, but it would be helpful to me and the rest of us if you could to identify the biblical flaw in my general position.
Fair enough. There are other possible meanings for "without" in the passage. Certainly there are not an infinite number of possibilities. My own take would be that the NKJV rendering, although adding words not found in the Greek text, does not misrepresent the most natural meaning of the phrase as it is being used.
A statement like, "nothing can happen without God," standing without further explanation, would more naturally be taken to mean "nothing can happen without God's involvement" (or, as we might say, "God was in it") than merely meaning "nothing can happen without God's awareness."
I will grant your legitimate right to disagree on such a point of interpretation of this one phrase. However, the whole of the theological argument is where I believe you are in a weak position. I do not require or expect for you to answer every point I have made, but it would be helpful to me and the rest of us if you could to identify the biblical flaw in my general position.
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
Just throwing it out there.Why does God allow so much suffering in the world? Why doesn't God do away with evil? Why does He allow sickness to continue? Doesn't He care? Why doesn't God do something? Why doesn't God intervene? Because this is not His domain. He will not interfere in the affairs of this earthly domain without the permission of those who hold dominion authority here. And who holds dominion authority? Every human being on earth who is a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. God is not to blame for human evil and suffering. We brought these things on ourselves by our own selfishness and rebellious spirit. God wants to help but won't intervene unless invited to do so by Kingdom citizens who know their dominion authority. Through prayer we invite God to act in ur domain. This is what Jesus meant when He said: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Mt. 18:18 Myles Munroe, Kingdom Principles
TK
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
TK,TK wrote:Just throwing it out there.Why does God allow so much suffering in the world? Why doesn't God do away with evil? Why does He allow sickness to continue? Doesn't He care? Why doesn't God do something? Why doesn't God intervene? Because this is not His domain. He will not interfere in the affairs of this earthly domain without the permission of those who hold dominion authority here. And who holds dominion authority? Every human being on earth who is a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. God is not to blame for human evil and suffering. We brought these things on ourselves by our own selfishness and rebellious spirit. God wants to help but won't intervene unless invited to do so by Kingdom citizens who know their dominion authority. Through prayer we invite God to act in ur domain. This is what Jesus meant when He said: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Mt. 18:18 Myles Munroe, Kingdom Principles
TK
Some of this commentary sounds right, but I take exception with the statement that I underlined, with my emphasis added in bold. Is the author saying that if the proverbial child, in our before-mentioned example, is raped and murdered, that those who prayed were either:
(1) not inviting God?
(2) not "Kingdom citizens"?
(3) did not "know their dominion authority"?
A real life case in point: Several years ago, a child was abducted from a nearby town. Within 24 hours, I was on the courthouse lawn with her family and hundreds of citizens from many local denominations as we lay aside theological divisions and gathered for prayer for this young innocent.
For weeks, my "prayer warrior" sisters (within Charismatic denominations) and I fervently prayed for her protection, safety and life to be spared. For months, several churches lifted banners with her name on them, reminding everyone to pray for her--which I personally did faithfully. Finally a year or so later, her body was found. More than once over the past few years, I lifted my voice to God and asked an agonizing WHY?!
Is Myles Monroe, in his quote above, implying that all of us together did not invite God, or that all of us together were not HIS kingdom citizens, or that all of us together did not know our dominion authority?
Is Myles Monroe, in his quote above, implying that I did not invite God, or that I was not one of HIS kingdom citizens, or that I did not know my dominion authority?
I would really like to know because if the end of suffering lay in my will, then please tell me how to effectively reach the intervening hand of God?!
Thank you and God bless,
Selah*
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
I'm enjoying this thread and have little to add, but am reading it carefully.
Selah, I just want to encourage you by stating how much I enjoy the spirit and content of your posts here and elsewhere on the forum.
Selah, I just want to encourage you by stating how much I enjoy the spirit and content of your posts here and elsewhere on the forum.
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
Paidion,
Considering the context:
Matthew 10:18-31 (New International Version)
18. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20. for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21. "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24. "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!
26. "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
Jesus repeatedly encourages them to not be afraid. Are you saying that the meaning of verse 29 is no more than that God will be aware of their situation? Getting back to SueAnn's original post, could we then just inform the sick, hurting, and endangered that we are aware of their situation and say "go, I wish you well"? I do not see what Jesus' point was if He meant that God would do nothing for them.
The New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 427 aàneu
Original Word Word Origin
aàneu a primary particle
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Aneu an'-yoo
Parts of Speech TDNT
Preposition None
Definition
without one's will or intervention
Thayer, Strong's, and Vine all agree on the above definition.
Considering the context:
Matthew 10:18-31 (New International Version)
18. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20. for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21. "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24. "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!
26. "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
Jesus repeatedly encourages them to not be afraid. Are you saying that the meaning of verse 29 is no more than that God will be aware of their situation? Getting back to SueAnn's original post, could we then just inform the sick, hurting, and endangered that we are aware of their situation and say "go, I wish you well"? I do not see what Jesus' point was if He meant that God would do nothing for them.
The New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 427 aàneu
Original Word Word Origin
aàneu a primary particle
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Aneu an'-yoo
Parts of Speech TDNT
Preposition None
Definition
without one's will or intervention
Thayer, Strong's, and Vine all agree on the above definition.
I’m afraid there is no way to get around this one.
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
I agree with Darin on all points quoted above!darinhouston wrote:I'm enjoying this thread and have little to add, but am reading it carefully.
Selah, I just want to encourage you by stating how much I enjoy the spirit and content of your posts here and elsewhere on the forum.
Re: Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?
All right, Steve, I'll attempt to do that. I think the words of Jesus are in conflict with your position, if I understand your position correctly. I just want to state what I think your position to be, so that I am not "identifying the biblical flaw" in the position of a strawman.Steve wrote:I do not require or expect for you to answer every point I have made, but it would be helpful to me and the rest of us if you could to identify the biblical flaw in my general position.
I think your position is that God has a higher purpose in "allowing" some people's heinous acts against others. For God has the power to prevent them from happening, and since God is love and yet didn't prevent them, He must have had a higher purpose in not preventing them, and so that this inaction on God's part in terms of His intended purpose, constitutes "The permissive will of God".
Few or no theological positions are directly addressed in Scripture, since the Bible in not a theological hand book. However, I believe I am aware of a number of passages, particularly from the words of Jesus, which are not in harmony with the thesis I described in the preceding paragraph.
Please let me know, Steve,whether or not I have accurately stated your general position.
Meanwhile, perhaps we can all take a break from our conflicting thoughts and meditate briefly on the apostle Paul's prayer for the Ephesians.
Paul prayed "... that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith––that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God."
Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us,to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. Ephesians 3:16-21 ESV
Isn't it wonderful that it is possible to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge? How is that possible? Through faith in God, and being rooted and grounded in LOVE, the same LOVE which God has, and IS, God can give us the strength and enablement to know the breadth and length and height and depth of that LOVE which would otherwise be unknowable (surpassing knowledge).
I think that when, through the grace of God, we truly comprehend the extent of God's love, we will be in a better position to understand the problem of evil. Perhaps everyone may agree with this statement ---- regardless of the stance you take concerning the issue at hand.
Last edited by Paidion on Wed May 13, 2009 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.