Would Adam have had dominion over storms?

[TK]

But what if they'd have simply trusted God and remained at peace, and never awakened Jesus?

Perhaps Jesus would have gone down with the ship.

Your suggestion that they should have just let the boat sink seems, to me, to be a bit unrealistic. I dont think Jesus expected any such thing. That is like saying if our child runs into the road we should not try to save it, after all-- God is in control.

TK

[psimmond]

TK said

Perhaps Jesus would have gone down with the ship.

I think the verse Satan quoted from Psalms about the angels protecting the righteous would cover Jesus here.

That is like saying if our child runs into the road we should not try to save it, after all-- God is in control.

I don't think it's the same at all. In your scenario we do nothing to save the child, but in the story, the disciples were doing their best to stay afloat. When we go through storms in life, we do what we can do but we also recognize we are quite limited so we should ask God to rescue us and then trust that He will rescue us if he wants to or He will let us sink if He determines that that is best. This kind of trust brings peace in storms.

[backwoodsman]

Your suggestion that they should have just let the boat sink seems, to me, to be a bit unrealistic.

I never suggested that. It doesn't say the boat was sinking, or would've sunk; it just says they were in danger.

That is like saying if our child runs into the road we should not try to save it, after all-- God is in control.

No, that would be more like those snake handlers who insist God has to save them when they go out of their way to put themselves in danger. Funny how those guys keep dying. (I read a while back about a guy who died doing it, whose father had also died doing it.)

...but I've always wondered about those signs that say "Slow Children At Play". Seems to me the obvious solution is to get faster children.

[Ian]

I`m not really persuaded by the snake charmer argument. That seems to be testing God for entertainment purposes. I`m not surprised He objects to being a jack-in-the-box to titilate onlookers.

Here`s another angle for your consideration:

I`m led to believe that Jesus addressed the storm in the same manner he addressed demons (I don`t know Greek but I have no reason to doubt Greg Boyd who does).

Jesus authorises Christians also to rebuke/even cast out demons. Was not some measure of control over other rebukable forces intended to be exercisable by a faith-filled man? The idea is not so far-fetched. The faith to cast a mountain into the sea - for the good of others, to equalize tensions in the Earth`s crust for example?*

I really wouldn`t care about this except for the theodicy problem. I would prefer to believe that Adam has forfeited his power over rebukable tsuanmis (and hookworms filling the stomachs of 5-year olds) than that they are "God`s megaphone to a deaf world". Some megaphone.

*Edit - please don`t misunderstand me - I don`t mean Adam himself having the power to cast the mountain into the sea.

[psimmond]

Ian, I can see why you want to believe this, but I just don't think you'll find any biblical support for it. The Bible specifically says Jesus gave his disciples power to cast out demons and heal sicknesses. Paul had the power to cast out demons and heal sicknesses but it appears he didn't have the power to stop the storm that capsized the ship he was on. I think we can say that almost everything we can think of can be rebuked by God, but it seems the things God gave some humans power to rebuke are quite limited.

I think God could have given power over storms to Adam and to his disciples but I don't see any evidence to think that he did. I think the most we can do is speculate like Boyd and say "maybe."

If you haven't already read this article by William Lane Craig on the problem of evil, you might want to check it out. I think it's better than most...
http://www.bethinking.org/resources/the ... f-evil.htm

[Perry]

Watchman Nee believed...

Hi Paidion,

Because I value you're opinion, when I saw a copy of Watchman Nee's book, The Normal Christian Life at a used bookstore I picked it up. I have it before me now. I read the first two sentences, and, I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed. If they are an indication of things to come, I'm not going to be very impressed.

What is the normal Christian life? The object of these studies is to show that it is something very different from the life of the average Christian.

Maybe something is getting lost in the translation here, but doesn't Nee know the definitions of normal and average? It seems to me that he either doesn't understand the definition of these two words, or he's using the word Christian differently in sentence one than he is in sentence two... either way, not, in my opinion, a very promising start.

[psimmond]

Perry,
It's funny you say that because this summer I finally got around to reading The Normal Christian Life. (I'd been feeling guilty that I still hadn't read this Christian staple.) I had to force myself to finish it. There were a few nuggets here and there, but I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone--very strange theology.

[backwoodsman]

I`m led to believe that Jesus addressed the storm in the same manner he addressed demons (I don`t know Greek but I have no reason to doubt Greg Boyd who does).

One doesn't need to know Greek to check Strong's, Vine's, and/or any Bible program and see that that's not the only way the word is used. Peter uses it in Matt 16:22 to rebuke Jesus. It doesn't even always mean "rebuke" -- it's the same word Jesus uses in Mark 8:30 to command the disciples not to tell anyone He's the Christ. So it seems to me Greg Boyd is giving a misleading impression here.

At the start of this thread you quote Boyd saying, "Many scholars argue, and I think rightly, that what Jesus was doing here was recovering the power that Adam was supposed to have had, namely the power of human beings to have dominion over storms." "Many scholars"? Really? If any scholars believe that, it's certainly not because they're scholars, and connecting "scholars" with such a statement strikes me as somewhere between absurd and misleading.

I'm not familiar with Greg Boyd; I listened to about half the MP3 you linked in the first post, and I have to say my impression is not positive. He's an engaging speaker; 20 years ago that might've captured my attention for a while, but these days my standards for teachers are somewhat higher. If I might presume to make a suggestion, look for teachers who stay a little closer to Scripture and have a little more depth to their thinking. (Might I suggest Steve Gregg?)

[TK]

Perry wrote:

Maybe something is getting lost in the translation here, but doesn't Nee know the definitions of normal and average? It seems to me that he either doesn't understand the definition of these two words, or he's using the word Christian differently in sentence one than he is in sentence two... either way, not, in my opinion, a very promising start.

I read this book (or parts of it) some time ago-- but here is how i understand what he is saying.

"Normal" means the way it SHOULD be, as it was in the early church when the church moved in power and changed the world.

He would argue, and many others, like Tozer, would argue that modern Christianity has fallen so far below the NT standard that we wouldnt recognize it if we saw it.

So the "Normal" Christian life is a NT life, a powerful life. That is the way it SHOULD be. Just because the average Christian is a lukewarm pew-warmer does not necessarily mean that is what a normal Christian life should be.

TK

[jeremiah]

hello perry,

Maybe something is getting lost in the translation here, but doesn't Nee know the definitions of normal and average? It seems to me that he either doesn't understand the definition of these two words, or he's using the word Christian differently in sentence one than he is in sentence two... either way, not, in my opinion, a very promising start.

i think that would depend on how you're thinking of "normal". i understand this word to technically have a suggestion of proper function, though it is colloquially often used as a synonym for "common". and maybe legitimately so. but if so then normal has an elastic meaning. i have never read anything from watchman nee. but i don't see anything wrong with the sentence you quoted. what were you thinking the problem with his usage of normal and average was?

grace and peace...

edit-(sorry tk, i didn't see your post.