Recent thoughts on Job...

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon
User avatar
steve
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by steve » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:34 pm

A prime example in the New Testament is found in Matt 16:23, where it is recorded that Jesus called Peter "Adversary" because he had said that it would never happen to Jesus that He would suffer and be killed and be raised to life again (vs 22). Unfortunately it is translated as if Jesus called Peter "Satan" (suggesting that he was that personal being known as "Satan." See the ESV translation below):

But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

But in reality, He called Peter "Adversary."
I think, if Jesus had called Peter “adversary” (in the generic sense), His words would have been recorded consistently in Greek for the whole sentence. As it is, the sentence is recorded in Greek, with the exception of the word “adversary,” which is retained in Hebrew. If Jesus was just saying that Peter was being adversarial, it seems that the Greek word diabolos would have been used (as is often the case in the New Testament). The retaining of the Hebrew form suggests that the word “Satan” (being left untranslated) is being adopted from the Old Testament as a proper name.
This doesn't sound at all as if Satan were seeking permission from God, but that he DEMANDED to have Peter. That sounds as if Satan were acting independently of God. If he had asked permission of God and God denied him, then it wouldn't have been necessary for Jesus to pray for Peter that his faith would not fail.
If Satan was acting independently of God, in this matter, to whom was he making his "demands"?

I agree with Robby’s comments on this. But even if you render the word “demanded,” is it not possible to use such a word for what Satan was doing in Job, chapters one and two? Wasn’t he demanding that God give him access to Job to test him? I see no difference between the two instances.
I began to think of all the other evil people in the world who act independently of God and work horrible evil in the world constantly, for example, those who beheaded Paul, and those who crucified Peter. Or do you think they couldn't have done that without getting permission from God to do it?
Absolutely, they could not do so! Are there not promises of God to these men, as to us, that God can protect them from all harm? God should not make promises that He cannot keep. He would be giving comfort through false promises, pretending to have powers that He does not possess—like when a mother cradles her child as the bombs are falling and says, “Don't worry! Everything’s going to be all right!” She is giving comfort, but not in a truthful way, since she has no power over where the bombs hit. If God has the power, and has promised, to protect from all harm, then any harm that comes must be that which He deliberately did not prevent (i.e., that He allowed to happen).
And how about the many martyrs in the early days of the church who were tortured to death, burnt at stake, etc. as well as the anabaptist martyrs who were tortured and killed in the middle ages by both Catholics and Protestants. Did God give his permission to these torturers and murderers to carry out their horrible acts? And what about our own time in which many little girls have been raped, tortured and killed? Were these vile deeds carried out with God's permission? If so, then it must have been God's will that these horrific acts took place. If this were true, then the implication is that no events can occur without them being God's will. However, if THAT were true, then the petition in the Lord's prayer would be meaningless, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." For God's will would always be done on earth.


There is nothing in my words that suggest that everything that happens is God's will. My comments, like the biblical record itself, do mean that no harm can befall those whom God has pledged to protect, unless He so wills it.

The rapist is not choosing to do God's will—and will be judged for his intentions as well as his action. If God chooses to protect the victim, He can and will do so. If He does not do so, it is not because He can't, but because He saw fit not to do so. His "seeing fit" is His choice—an act of His will. If He protects the victim and prevents the rape (as He has done many times, I am sure), the rapist will still be judged for his free-will choice—a choice which was not the will of God for him to make—which was to rape the victim. However, the crime will have never been committed against the victim.

People took up stones, choosing to kill Jesus, on many occasions. It was not God's will for Jesus to die in that manner, at those times, so He was protected from them and walked away unscathed. However, when He was finally arrested, and killed, it was because God did not choose to protect Him, as He had previously. Jesus was, on that occasion, "delivered [over to their malicious intentions] by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23).

Similarly, there were many attempts against Paul's life from which God delivered him: Once, when people lay in wait for him at the gates of Damascus; once, when he was stoned (seemingly to death) at Lystra; once, when 40 men swore not to eat or drink until they had murdered him (in which case, the deliverance was spectacularly providential). Even when he was in danger of being condemned to death by Nero, at his first trial, he escaped. He specifically attributed this outcome to the Lord's deliverance (2 Tim.4:17). Yet, at a later trial before Nero, Paul was not delivered, but was executed. Why did God deliver him on previous occasions, and not on the final one? Certainly, it has nothing to do with God's inability to intervene this final time, as He had done so many times before. It was, rather, because God wished for Paul to die on that occasion, and delivered him over to the plans of the wicked—as He had not willingly done previously.

Paul also had a "messenger of Satan" buffeting him perennially, from which he, three times, asked Jesus to deliver him. Jesus answered Paul, but not in the manner that you apparently would. Jesus didn't say, "Sorry Paul, my hands are tied. I would like to deliver you from Satan's attacks, but, what the heck! I gave him free will, so what's a Savior to do?" Instead, Jesus told Paul that these buffetings were circumstances in which Paul should rejoice, because God was more glorified through Paul's being afflicted than He would be by his being relieved. Paul got the message, and said, "Therefore, I take pleasure in infirmities...in persecutions, in distresses..." (2 Cor.12:7-10).

Sadly, you are advocating a sub-biblical conception of suffering, death, and the glory of God. You see the martyrdom of Peter and Paul as tragedies, which God would have liked to have prevented, but simply could not. The apostles saw things differently. In speaking of Peter's martyrdom, John said that this was the death by which Peter "would glorify God" (John21:19).

I have the impression that you have no place in your theology for a God who is glorified in the suffering of the saints, and who counts His eternal glory a thing more important than their temporal relief. This simply means that at least a hundred major passages in the Old and New Testaments can find no place in your theology. I recommend that you spend some time with such passages, and develop a view of suffering that agrees with Jesus, the apostles, and all the saints and martyrs.
To me, the position that God wills all events that occur, sounds a whole lot like Calvinism.
I have never been a Calvinist, but I can read scripture. To argue for an omni-competent God, who makes promises that He is capable of keeping, is not Calvinism. It is Christianity. Anything less is a God who may be well-intentioned (or maybe not even that!), but who simply doesn’t have the competence to back up His guarantees. What religion is THAT?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4905
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by Paidion » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:07 pm

The Online Bible Program Greek lexicon defines "σατανας" (satanas) as "adversary" as its primary connotation:
1) adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act), the name given to
1a) the prince of evil spirits, the inveterate adversary of God and Christ
1a1) he incites apostasy from God and to sin
1a2) circumventing men by his wiles
1a3) the worshippers of idols are said to be under his control
1a4) by his demons he is able to take possession of men and inflict them with diseases
1a5) by God’s assistance he is overcome
1a6) on Christ’s return from heaven he will be bound with chains for a thousand years, but when the thousand years are finished he will walk the earth in yet greater power, but shortly after will be given over to eternal punishment
1b) a Satan-like man

The New American Standard Greek lexicon also includes "adversary" in its definition.

G Abbott-Smith D.D., D.C.L, LL.D defines the word in his lexicon as "Satan (i.e. the adversary)

I don't understand why you think Jesus would call Peter "Satan." He wasn't the devil was he? But he was an adversary against what Jesus intended to do to save humanity.
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 81.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4905
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by Paidion » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:14 pm

Hi Steve, you wrote:There is nothing in my words that suggest that everything that happens is God's will. My comments, like the biblical record itself, do mean that no harm can befall those whom God has pledged to protect, unless He so wills it.
Then if it is not His will, for example, that Paul was beheaded, then those who beheaded him did not have God's permission to do it. Yet the devil can do nothing without God's permission. Is that your position?
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 81.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by steve » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:25 pm

If you are curious about what my position is, I recommend my last post (the one from which you quoted). The answers to these questions are included there. Please read it again.

steve7150
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by steve7150 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:18 am

It was God that allowed Eve to be tempted (who else could it be who put her in the same garden with the serpent and the tree with the forbidden fruit?), yet it would be crazy to suggest that she was not required to resist Satan's temptation. Job himself passed the test when Satan intended to get him to curse God.







It seems obvious to me God caused Satan (The Adversary) to tempt Eve in the Garden, would God allow happenstance to steer the course of his highest creation? God caused the earth to have thorns and thistles and God cursed Eve in childbirth. God caused the flood and the fire to rain down on Sodom and Gemorrah. Also I still don't know any real difference between God ALLOWING things verses CAUSING things because God has the power to intervene and apparently for the most part does not. It was James who said if we know to do good and we don't , we have sinned. God can intervene and stop evil and destroy Satan but He doesn't, therefore it HAS TO BE for a greater good that He doesn't normally intervene whether we can understand it or not.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by mattrose » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:52 pm

steve7150 wrote:Also I still don't know any real difference between God ALLOWING things verses CAUSING things because God has the power to intervene and apparently for the most part does not.
What if you allowed your teenage daughter to go out with her friends and they chose to rob a convenience store. Would you say you caused her to rob the store? Would you say you allowed it? Or would you just say you created a context in which her robbery was possible. I'd say the latter. And that's what I say about God.
It was James who said if we know to do good and we don't , we have sinned. God can intervene and stop evil and destroy Satan but He doesn't, therefore it HAS TO BE for a greater good that He doesn't normally intervene whether we can understand it or not.
Yes, it is better that we exist in a realm of freedom than that we not. Since the whole point of God creating is to create an environment where love is possible, freedom is essential. It would be worse for God to abandon his love-project by removing freedom after freedom and preventing choice.

steve7150
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by steve7150 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:22 pm

What if you allowed your teenage daughter to go out with her friends and they chose to rob a convenience store. Would you say you caused her to rob the store? Would you say you allowed it? Or would you just say you created a context in which her robbery was possible. I'd say the latter. And that's what I say about God.

It was James who said if we know to do good and we don't , we have sinned. God can intervene and stop evil and destroy Satan but He doesn't, therefore it HAS TO BE for a greater good that He doesn't normally intervene whether we can understand it or not.


Yes, it is better that we exist in a realm of freedom than that we not. Since the whole point of God creating is to create an environment where love is possible, freedom is essential. It would be worse for God to abandon his love-project by removing freedom after freedom and preventing choice.




To your first point, if i had the power to stop the robbery and didn't i would be complicit, so God is either complicit in evil, or the allowance and also the causing of it on occasion is for a greater good IMHO. To the second point , the freedom everyone has often does not exist in reality. Many people in this life have had their freedoms violated or limited plus God intervening to destroy Satan or evil acts for example shouldn't limit our freedoms in fact maybe increase it.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4905
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by Paidion » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:41 pm

Steve 7150 wrote:God can intervene and stop evil and destroy Satan but He doesn't, therefore it HAS TO BE for a greater good that He doesn't normally intervene whether we can understand it or not.
This is a common idea, and I understand the reasoning. My son's mother-in-law (a Calvinist) was with her husband, and they accidentally ran their car into a rock cut. The woman remarked, "I wonder what God's purpose was in that."

I have maintained that there is no deeper purpose for God not intervening. It's just that usually He doesn't interfere with the free-will choices of man, because He wants everyone to freely choose Him which will someday happen (I believe in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God through their own ability to choose). However, if I remember correctly, Steve Gregg stated to me that that WAS the deeper purpose (or the "greater good" if you want to put it that way).
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 81.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by mattrose » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:10 pm

steve7150 wrote:To your first point, if i had the power to stop the robbery and didn't i would be complicit, so God is either complicit in evil, or the allowance and also the causing of it on occasion is for a greater good IMHO.


You would have the power to stop the robbery by not letting her have freedom. But once you decide to let her have freedom, you loose some level of control. The 'greater good' here is the possibility of love... the robbery played no necessary role.
To the second point , the freedom everyone has often does not exist in reality. Many people in this life have had their freedoms violated or limited plus God intervening to destroy Satan or evil acts for example shouldn't limit our freedoms in fact maybe increase it.
I think you're using (and have almost always used in our discussions) a different definition of 'freedom'. When I talk about freedom, I'm talking about it in a ethical sense (the ability to do moral good or moral evil). You tend to use the word freedom in the sense of one's ability pursue desired activities.

One's freedom to pursue desired activities may be thwarted by another (for instance, if you are chained up, you can't go anywhere). But one's ability to refuse to hate the person you chained you is a moral freedom that cannot be removed. It exists in reality.

steve7150
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Recent thoughts on Job...

Post by steve7150 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:11 pm

I think you're using (and have almost always used in our discussions) a different definition of 'freedom'. When I talk about freedom, I'm talking about it in a ethical sense (the ability to do moral good or moral evil). You tend to use the word freedom in the sense of one's ability pursue desired activities.

One's freedom to pursue desired activities may be thwarted by another (for instance, if you are chained up, you can't go anywhere). But one's ability to refuse to hate the person you chained you is a moral freedom that cannot be removed. It exists in reality.








What do you think it meant that God put thorns and thistles in our life and brought pain to childbirth? Why did God create the flood to kill everyone? Evil certainly didn't disappear afterwards.

Post Reply

Return to “Poetry and Wisdom”