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.
First I want to emphasize that I fully concur with the writer of Hebrews, that God disciplines His children.
In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him.
For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Hebrews 12:4-11 ESV
The writer compares the Heavenly Father’s discipline of His children with that of an earthly father’s discipline of his. Using this very analogy, I tried to show that our loving Heavenly Father doesn’t discipline His children, by killing their babies, or allowing their young daughters to be raped, just as a loving human father doesn’t discipline his children by breaking their bones or stabbing them with a knife. I declared that such acts are not discipline at all but child abuse. Steve’s response with his examples of a frontier father sawing off a son’s limb without anesthesia in order to prevent the spreading of gangrene, or his giving permission for doctors to re-break his son’s arm in order to set it properly, did nothing whatever to negate my point, since in his examples, the extreme pain caused to the child was not for the purpose of discipline. The medical necessity of doing so, is of a completely different order. So I stand by my premise that a loving, human father would not discipline his child in these severe ways. I cannot imagine anyone standing by while a father was breaking his son’s arm or sawing off his limb, and casually commenting to a friend, “Oh, he is only disciplining his rebellious son!”
So if a loving earthly father would not use such extreme measures to discipline his children, don’t tell me that the Heavenly Father, who is pure LOVE, would do so! As my first wife used to say, "God is at least as good as I am!"
That is not to say that a loving earthly father’s discipline is not painful. He may spank his child, deny him privileges, “ground” him, confine him room, etc. But I tell you that, when I was a child, if either of my parents even looked at me disapprovingly, I immediately repented and was submissive to them. They never had to even spank me, let alone break my arm, saw off my leg, or apply a red hot poker to my buttocks!
So, as the writer to the Hebrews states, the Heavenly Father’s discipline is also painful, but it trains us to bear the peaceful fruits of righteousness! However, the writer gives no suggestion that the Father’s discipline is of the extreme nature which I described above. If anyone should do any of those atrocious things to me to “teach me a lesson”, the thought would never cross my mind that the Father did not prevent him from doing so in order to discipline me, or to serve some other “higher purpose.”
God’s correction of all mankind can be painful. Jesus said:
I came to throw fire upon the earth and I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and how pressured I am until it is executed!
We read in Isaiah 10:17
The light of Israel will become a fire, and his Holy One a flame; and it will burn and devour his thorns and briers in one day.
The fire of God is for the purpose of purifying and refining.
Malachi 3:2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? "For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap.
Mark 9:49 For every one will be salted with fire.
The baptism of fire is indeed corrective and serves the redemptive purposes of God!
But then God’s kindness is also meant to lead people to repentance, and it does indeed lead many people to repentance. Such people are more affected by kindness than by harshness. But others presume upon God’s forbearance and do not repent. They mistakenly think they will escape His judgment.
Romans 2:4,5 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
There is no doubt that suffering for the sake of Christ serves a higher purpose. This I have never denied. For Christ Himself, as Steve pointed out, suffered for our sake. And this for the higher purpose of securing our deliverance from sin. Yes, I agree with Steve that “It was the will of His Father that He suffer”. This was the Father’s will because it was the means of our redemption. We should be cautious, however, in quoting “It pleased the Lord to bruise Him” as if it meant that God took pleasure in Christ’s sufferings per se. A person who gives one of his lungs to save another’s life, when thanked, might say, “I was pleased to donate my lung”. He does not mean that he enjoyed having one of his lungs removed, or that he now enjoys missing a lung. Rather he means that he is pleased to donate his lung in order to save the other person’s life. Likewise, God didn’t take a sadistic pleasure in seeing His Son suffer. Rather He was pleased to sacrifice Him, even though it meant great suffering on Jesus’ part, in order to provide a way of deliverance from sin for all of mankind.
We also, are called to bear witness to Christ by following in his steps of suffering (a quite different matter from asking, “What would Jesus do?” as in the book by Charles Sheldon
In His Steps )
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. I Peter 2:8-24 ESV
As the apostle Paul put it concerning our suffering for our witness to Christ,
“The light, momentary affliction is achieving in us a lasting weight of glory beyond measure.” 2 Corinthians 4:17
Paul also wrote:
We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. 2 Corinthians 4:8-10
.
However, Christ’s sufferings and our suffering for His sake, are of a completely different order from the general suffering of mankind at the hands of murderers, rapists, and torturers.
Steve has recently stated that the following summary of his position is correct:
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".
I will hereafter refer to this position as GNIBHP (God’s Non-Intervention Because of Higher Purpose). Keep in mind that GNIBHP refers specifically to people's heinous acts against others.
I think of the prayer after the manner of which Jesus taught His disciples to pray. Part of that prayer was, “Let your will come into being, as in heaven, also on earth.” This is the imperative mode as in “Let there be light” (Gen 1:3). Would Jesus have prayed such a prayer if the Father’s will were already being done on earth? Perhaps you say, “Oh, but Jesus was praying that the 'primary will' of God would come to pass. His permissive will with a view to a higher purpose is always being done on earth”. Neither Jesus, nor any of the apostles, ever suggested that the Father has these two classes of wills. Nevertheless, let’s assume that it is so. Let’s say that God “stays His hand” and does not intervene when Joe Bloe , for his personal deviant pleasure, is torturing Jane Zane. For God has a higher purpose in “permitting” him to do so. But Jim Schlim hears Jane’s screams, enters the building, knocks Joe cold, and releases Jane. Has Jim opposed God’s permissive will? Has he prevented God’s higher purpose from being fulfilled? Has Jim thus committed a sin of which he must repent? Or does God’s higher purpose change the moment someone intervenes? If so, then it would appear that God changes His will and His purposes in accordance to the choices of man. If that is the case, I don’t see much of Suzana’s “sovereign, reigning king” in such arbitrary change of purpose in a king who bows to the whims of man.
Not only this, but anyone can use GNIBHP thinking as an excuse for sin. After all, God didn’t prevent me from sinning, and so it must have been His permissive will for me to do so. He must have had a higher purpose fulfilled by allowing me to sin. It reminds me of Paul's words:
But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?––as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. Romans 3:7,8
During my only year attending a Bible school, my history-of-missions instructor told of a Muslim who murdered his wife, and then affirmed that it was God’s will. That seems to be in line with GNIBHP thinking, God didn’t prevent the man from killing his wife, and so it must have been His “permissive will” that the man do so. God must have had a higher purpose in mind.
Interestingly, the writer of 2 Peter stated in response to the scoffers’ “Where is the promise of His coming?” that God is patient toward us, “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance”. 2 Peter 3:9. This writer poses a very interesting conundrum for those who differentiate between God’s “primary will” and His “permissive will.” Was the writer’s statement that God is not willing that any should perish” His primary will? It would seem so, but yet He stays His hand of judgment with the higher purpose that all WILL come to repentance. Since God could have judged mankind, but has chosen not to intervene because of the higher purpose to bring all to repentance, it appears that the staying of His hand would be His permissive will. Could His permissive will be that man would go on sinning so that His primary will could be accomplished? To me this sounds a lot like the end justifying the means.
But an even more serious conundrum. Back to Jesus’ prayer. If God’s permissive will is to bring about a deeper purpose, then surely that deeper purpose is His primary will. So if God’s will is not being done on earth as it is in heaven, and God does nothing to change that state of affairs, then God is “allowing” such a state so that His higher purpose or primary will might be done. But Jesus prays that God’s (primary) will be done on earth as it is in heaven. But if Jesus’ prayer should be answered, would not that fact thwart the “higher purpose” served by His will NOT being done on earth? So it would seem that God’s primary will comes into effect either way, whether His will is being done on earth by man, or not. Somehow, that stance reminds me of Calvinism.
When God’s will is recognized as simple, such inherent contradictions as I have described above, do not arise.
When I wrote that part of the solution to the problem evil was God’s respect of man’s will, I referred to His respect to mankind as a whole, and not individually. I see the possession of free will as perhaps the chief way in which God created man in His image. With the fall of man, all people became autonomous, since they moved away from dependence on God. Perhaps there was a grain of truth in Satan’s affirmation that if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would become like God. Like God, they could make things happen by exercising their free will. Whoever was the most physically and/or intellectually capable could force his will on others. Cain killed Abel. And so to this very day, there are those who have the power to kill, rape, torture, etc. So if man thinks he can get along fine on his own, independent of God, then God says, “Go ahead and try it. I won’t interfere. Let’s find out how successful you are!”
Steve suggested that if my thesis is correct, then God respects the will of the perpetrator, but not of the victim. But I didn’t have in mind His respect for individual wills, but that of mankind in general. Perhaps this would have been plainer had I written that God’s respect for the autonomy of man, is part of the solution to the problem of evil. But even with that change, one could still voice the same objection. So all I can say is that in general, He respects the autonomy and free will of man, since they are his own attributes, and if man insists on exercising them instead of depending completely on God, then He will respect that, too. So He doesn’t often intervene. Man makes his own sinful choices. It might be said that God doesn’t intervene so that man will learn from the consequences of his wrongdoing. But the fact is, that in this life, some learn from these consequences, but many don’t. So if that were the chief reason for His non-intervention, it doesn’t seem to be working very well. However, God will not always bear with man’s inhumanity to man. He intends, ultimately, to judge and correct every individual person.
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Luke 13:1-3
Jesus seems to confront the view that God allowed those Galileans to suffer this way in order to punish them for their sin. Other Galileans didn’t suffer in this way though their sin was just as great. But Jesus didn’t then declare to them the GNIBHP view, and suggest that it wasn’t because of their sin that they died, but because God had a deeper purpose. I think Jesus was implying that God wasn’t behind the murder of these Galileans in ANY sense (although He could have prevented the murder). So it seems that it was not even God’s “permissive will” that Pilate murder those Galileans.
When a woman had a “spirit of infirmity” for 18 years, and was bent over and unable to straighten herself, Jesus didn’t suggest that God was allowing it for a deeper purpose, and that she should simply accept it as from God’s hand. Rather He laid His hands on her and healed her, stating that the infirmity was the work of Satan. In many or most cases, Jesus healed ALL who came to Him with illness. Not on a single occasion did He ask them to accept their illness, or suggest to them that God failed to heal them because He had a deeper purpose in it. I know that the absence of Jesus’ reference to GNIBHP doesn’t prove the view incorrect. Yet, if it were a general explanation for the atrocities which God “allows” people to commit against others, it seems we should expect some mention of it by Jesus or the apostles.
I know you can point out to me the case of the man who was blind from birth (not actually an atrocity foisted upon him by others) where Jesus was asked who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind. Jesus replied, “Neither… but so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” Was this man born blind for a deeper purpose, that God’s works might be revealed in him? Maybe Jesus was implying that since they believed there had to be a deeper purpose, let them not assume such a foolish reason that either the man sinned in a previous incarnation, or his parents. Rather if they had to have a reason, let it be that which was about to happen --- that God’s works might be revealed in him. On the other hand, maybe I’m out to lunch with this supposition. Maybe Jesus really did mean that the man was born blind for this higher purpose. But if so, does it follow that ALL suffering is “allowed” by God for a higher purpose? There is no suggestion here or elsewhere that God's non-intevention in man's atrocities to others is because of a higher goal to be realized.
Steve wrote: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).
Steve, you may want to identify with Job’s view after his children died, but perhaps you don’t want to identify with his view after he suffered from boils. He wasn’t quite so accepting of “the will of God’ then. He said that he had no hope. But he was so sure he was right and that God was wrong (he mistakenly thought God was punishing him) that he had prepared his case of self-defense before God. He said he would defend his ways to His face. He said that he knew he would be vindicated!
Let me have silence, and I will speak, and let come on me what may. I will take my flesh in my teeth, and put my life in my hand. See, he will kill me; I have no hope; but I will defend my ways to his face. This will be my salvation, that the godless shall not come before him.
Listen carefully to my words, and let my declaration be in your ears. I have indeed prepared my case; I know that I shall be vindicated. Job 13:13-18 NRSV
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).
But neither Joseph’s view, nor Job’s view (even before his boils), nor that which was expressed by Jesus, Paul, or Peter, supports the GNIBHP thesis!
The passage in 2 Cor: 12:7-10 does lend support to the idea that God gave Paul a “thorn in the flesh” (perhaps eye cataracts), a messenger of Satan to keep him humble. But this is quite different from saying that God allowed someone to poke a red hot poker in his eyes, blinding him in order to bring about his humility.
To sum up, I simply wish to affirm that man’s atrocious, heinous, acts against other people have their origin in the evil hearts of fallen humanity, and has absolutely no relation to God or His purposes.
