Would Adam have had dominion over storms?

[Ian]

Backwoodsman, I would have thought my multitude of posts praising SG would have indicated that I listen to him a lot, more than I do anyone else probably. But lately Greg Boyd has had my ear on the theodicy problem.

The William Lane Craig article to which psimmonds linked contains this:

Moreover, there is a realm of beings higher than man also in rebellion against God, demonic creatures, incredibly evil, [b]in whose power the creation lies [/b]and who seek to destroy God's work and thwart His purposes.

Ah, one important theologian`s agreement with Mr Boyd on this at least!

[psimmond]

Ian, why do you think Craig would agree with Boyd? They're talking about two different things--Adam & demons.

It seems that after God gave Satan permission to test Job, Satan sent a strong wind to blow down Job's house and kill his children? Job 1:18-19

I still don't see any reason to think Adam had this kind of power, but I would agree that spirits (angels and demons) could. (It's hard to say how often God would allow them to exercise authority over the weather.)

*I realize it's not clear that Satan is an angel, but even if he isn't, I think it's likely that he's similar to them--he's a created spirit being and the demons are under his authority.

[Perry]

what were you thinking the problem with his usage of normal and average was?

(Don't want to sidetrack the thread too terribly, so I'll just respond to this briefly and to TK as well).

To say that "the normal Christian life is very different from the life if the average Christian" is, to my thinking, very akin to saying "the normal sedan is very different than the average sedan", or "the normal apple is very different from the average apple."

TK's explanation is to suggest shades of meaning for the word "Christian" and I allowed for that in my criticism. I might be able to get away with saying "the normal apple is very different from the average apple" if I have two different kinds of "apple" in mind. Put another way, if all the apples in the world were abnormal (and I don't doubt that it's Nee's intent to suggest that the average Christian life is abnormal), then I could say, "the normal apple is very different than the average apple you see in the world today" or something similar. But that's not what the book says. It says, "the normal Christian life is very different from the life of the average Christian."

I realize this all seems hyper-critical. I intend to give the book a fair reading. It just seemed like a sloppy way to open the book, particularly when it's referring to its on title.

[backwoodsman]

Backwoodsman, I would have thought my multitude of posts praising SG would have indicated that I listen to him a lot, more than I do anyone else probably.

I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think you'd heard of Steve. I was simply trying to make the point, a bit too obtusely perhaps, that it matters a lot who you listen to. Greg Boyd seems to me, like many who are popular these days, more of an entertainer than a Bible teacher.

But lately Greg Boyd has had my ear on the theodicy problem.

You've mentioned the "theodicy problem" several times. Could you explain a little more about what you see as a problem? I'm not at all sure how it all fits together (or doesn't, as the case may be) for you.

[Ian]

To Backwoodsman,

"Theodicy problem" is sloppy language on my part. Of course theodicy itself is not the problem for me, it being merely the study of the problem. But what is the problem? Do you never wrestle with that yourself?

Moral evil is not a hurdle for me, but natural evil is. Greg Boyd`s own pain over his 25-year old son with autism (for whom "reality seems deliberately designed to torment") struck a cord with me because of my youngest brother who has twin daughters with Angelman`s syndrome. TK wrote in reply to my post about them here

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... gelman%60s

Like I said, all this speculation really doesn't do any good because there are no satisfactory answers. There just aren't any, no matter what spin we try to place on it.

So I am left with determining, by faith, that God is good, all the time, and I just have to allow these difficult dilemmas to "float out there" and allow them to just be, because my pea brain cant comprehend how this all works.

I agree. But what problem? Of course there`s a problem.


To PSimmonds,

I don`t need to believe Adam had power over storms but I would say I need to believe something William Lane Craig wrote in the article to which you linked:

as for natural evils, Plantinga points out that these could be the result of demonic activity in the world. Demons can have freedom just like human beings, and it is possible that God could not preclude natural evil without removing the free will of demonic creatures. Now one might think that such a resolution to the problem of natural evil is ridiculous and even frivolous, but that would be to confuse the logical problem of evil with the probabilistic problem of evil. Admittedly, ascribing all evil to demonic beings is improbable, but that is strictly irrelevant here. All one needs to show now is that such an explanation is possible and that, as a consequence, the objector's argument that God and evil are logically incompatible fails.

God theoretically could be the God who has a hand in the hookworm (or the hookworm breaking out of its boundaries?) but I desperately don`t want to believe that.

[backwoodsman]

So I am left with determining, by faith, that God is good, all the time, and I just have to allow these difficult dilemmas to "float out there" and allow them to just be, because my pea brain cant comprehend how this all works.

I agree. But what problem? Of course there`s a problem.

I've been thinking about this some, and haven't come up with anything different than my first thoughts on it. TK stated it pretty well. We don't have to, and can't hope to, understand everything; but either we trust God, or we don't. It's a choice we all have to make, and there is no middle ground.