Steve wrote:Quote:
"I certainly do not believe that God chooses certain people to be born with birth defects for some "higher purpose." God just isn't like that. "
Why would we say God is not like that? Is He not ast least as good as a caring earthly father? If there is some ultimate good needed by His children, but which cannot be accomplished without their going through suffering, is He not sufficiently committed to our well-being to take us through the necessary steps?
I am not sure whom you are addressing, Steve, but since your post follows mine, it could be I. I don’t recall writing the quoted words, though I agree with them. Much of what you wrote to the person you are addressing doesn’t apply to me, and so I am a bit confused.
My son broke his arm skating, a few months ago. By the time the emergency room could see him, it was necessary to re-break his arm to reset it properly. The doctor asked my permission to do this. It was going to inflict further pain upon my son, which I was loath to allow, but I gave my approval—not because I am either cruel or callous to my son's suffering, but because I don't want his arm to be deformed for the rest of his life.
Of course you would approve of the re-breaking of your son’s arm in order that it might be healed. But would you choose to have one of your children be born deformed? Such a choice does not seem to belong in the same category.
Is God any less concerned about our broken condition? Is He not prepared to authorize further breaking in order that our souls not be deformed for eternity? think He is every bit as committed to His children as I am to mine, so I would be shocked to hear that He would not allow temporal suffering in order to achieve permanent benefit. I have a higher view of the love and kindness of God than you have—mine is just less sentimental.
I am not sure that you do have have a higher view of his love, nor do I regard my own view as “more sentimental”. It is my belief that God sends people to a place of suffering which lasts for many ages for “a higher purpose”, i.e. for the sake of their correction. But that is quite a different matter from that of having a child (or anyone else) tortured to death here on earth for a deeper purpose. How would that do the child any good? It’s not at all like the re-breaking of your son’s arm in order to heal it. Nevertheless, let’s suppose that the torturing of the child was for the purpose of teaching the parents some kind of lesson. Was there no other way that the parents might learn that lesson? And if not, did the parents, in fact, learn that lesson? Or did they just begin to hate God for “allowing” or even causing their child to suffer this agonizing death? In the case of your son, you knew, and your son knew, that the additional suffering would result in the healing of his arm. In the case of the child, neither the child nor her parents are given any reason or “deeper purpose”. If there is such a purpose they are left to figure it out for themselves --- and I have yet to find anyone who has.
Sometimes, some good and important events follow horrible experiences, and there’s no doubt that God can and does bring good out of evil. But that is a very different matter from the idea that God causes the evil event in order to bring about the good.
If Jesus said that a man, in some cases, would be better to enter into life having one hand or one eye, than to have two of each and be cast into Gehenna, is it contrary to His character to arrange, in some cases, the very circumstances that He says would be "more profitable to you" (Matt.5:30)?
I think it is contrary to his character. As far as I am aware, there is no record of his ever having done so while he walked this earth. But in any case, it is the person himself who “cuts off’ his own hand or “plucks out” his own eye --- whatever action these figures of speech represent --- and not God who directly causes the person to do the act. So the man’s free will is involved here. Both you and your son’s free will were involved in the re-breaking of his arm. You expected a good result from the doctor’s procedure. The child’s free will was not involved when it came to her rape and torture. Nor was she told about the good which would result from the action. Thus I am fully persuaded that God had no part in this evil act. It is entirely an act which was done by a wicked man. The reason God did not intervene may have been the matter of the universe’s stability, but was surely not in order to fulfill a deeper purpose.
I think we need to be wary of the temptation to reduce the real God to an emotionally manageable being, who dutifully stays within the box of our sentimental theology. I don't believe the universe contains a one-dimensional god.
Nor do I conceive that God is one-dimensional. Are you certain you fully understand my position and those who believe as I do?
The real God crippled Jacob permanently (Gen.32:25, 31). Was this not for some greater good?
We don’t know that it was permanent. Though the “man” put his thigh out of joint, Jacob wouldn’t let him go until the man had blessed him. I can’t say that I fully understand this encounter. But I would not conclude that its purpose was for a greater good. Yet, if it were, I can’t imagine what that greater good was ---- unless it was to get Jacob to be persistent in what he wanted. But he seemed pretty persistent even prior to this, in his trickery in getting the blessing of his father by disguising himself as Esau (at the instruction of his mother).
Which God was it that said to Moses, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?" (Exod.4:11)? Since God plainly does such things, is it not best to recognize that His doing so is for the greater good, though His reasons may not be obvious to us?
By creating Adam and Eve, God has made man, and so in making Adam and Eve, he made all of humanity. Yes, that includes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, and the blind. God made them all. But that does not imply that he
caused them to be mute, deaf, or blind. Those defects were the result of biology, defects arising from the fall of man, and with it the fall of nature itself. As I see it, those particular defects were not given for a greater good “which may not be obvious to us”. Rather, what is not obvious to us is why fallen nature itself has been allowed to continue for thousands of years. Doubtless there is a greater good to come of it all. For we read that this condition of nature will not continue forever, but :
... the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God Romans 8:19-21
The problem isn’t that God sometimes uses suffering in general to bring about a greater good. I believe that to be the case. The problem is the notion that God causes
all suffering to bring about a greater good. I know of no other teaching that had caused as many people to turn against God. They blame God for their child’s murder, their mother’s cancer, and their cousin’s torture, for they are taught in church that all calamity is for a greater good. But they never find out what that greater good is. So what good is it?
To which God was Joseph referring, when he told his brothers, "God sent me before you to preserve life"(Gen.45:5)? "Sent me?" Is this anything but a euphemism for "caused me to be betrayed, rejected, enslaved, falsely accused by a seductress and unjustly jailed for 13 years"? Is not preserving life a greater good?
I read that Joseph said that God sent him before them, all right. But I don’t read any more into it. I don’t read that God caused his brothers to sell him, or caused his suffering which resulted from the false accusation of Potiphar’s wife. All these things happened, but did God require them in order to send Joseph before them? I don’t think so. I think that if his brothers had chosen not to sell Joseph as a slave, God would have still had a means of getting him there.
It was God who sent Judah into captivity for 70 years, which seemed to be done, not vindictively, but to cure them from idolatry—a greater good.
Yes, God may have done that for that purpose. But does it follow that
all suffering is God’s work to fulfill a higher purpose?
And what shall we make of His treatment of His most beloved Son? Did it not "please the Lord to bruise Him?" (Isa.53:10)? Why? Was it not for some greater good?
Do specific examples of God allowing suffering for a purpose prove that God allows all suffering for a purpose?
If there is a teaching of scripture plainer than this, that God uses suffering to bring about glory to Himself and to His children (Job 23:10/ John 11:4/ Rom.5:3-4; 8:18/ 2 Cor.4:17/ Phil.1:12/ Col.1:24/ Heb.12:5-11/ James 1:2-4/ 1 Pet.1:7; 4:12-14), then I do not know what it could be.
I examined every one of these passages, and I fail to see that any of them, with the possible exception of John 11:4 support the position you seem to hold. All the rest indicate that good can come out of chastisement. Let’s take for example the passage from Hebrews 12:
And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? —"My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. For the Lord disciplines him whom 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 to discipline 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 at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Hebrews 12:5-11
I do not understand why you are bringing up these Scriptures. Does anyone in the forum deny that God disciplines his children to correct them even though the discipline may be painful? This passage points out that a good father disciplines his children, and that God does the same for his. But does a good father torture his child? Or lock him in a dark room for two days? Or beat him to death? Or permit someone else to do these horrible things to his child? If not, how can God be said to be a
good Father, if he is the cause of all the atrocities which occur on earth? I’m sure many of the earthly fathers who administer cruel and unusual punishment would declare that they are doing it for their child’s “good”. But it’s a lie.
Jesus himself showed that some disasters were not a result of particular wrongdoing that had to be corrected:
There were some present at that very time who told him of 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 thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." Luke 13:1-5
One could ask, "Why did those disasters come upon those particular people?" I think Jesus himself shows that it was not because they were being disciplined for their sin ---- or that God had a deeper purpose for bringing these disasters upon them, for that matter. In fact, I think it can be inferred that God had nothing to do with those disasters.
I don’t think it’s at all necessary to “get God off the hook” by declaring that every horrendous event which occurs is his doing, or is allowed by him in order to achieve a greater good or to fulfill a deeper purpose.
As for John 11:4, Jesus indeed declared that Lazarus’ illness (and death) was for the purpose of glorifying God. (God raised him to life through Jesus). Once again, the fact that God sometimes uses suffering and pain for a deeper purpose does not prove that
all suffering and pain is God’s work in order to fulfill a deeper purpose.
Most of us here believe that Calvinism is flawed. Therefore, we may be tempted to discard all of the biblical proofs of the sovereignty of God, because Calvinists happen to be so fond of them. It is an unthinking reaction to say, we must not let these verses speak plainly, but we must explain them away, because, as they stand, they may encourage Calvinism. Our theology must never be reactive. Doing good theology does not mean finding out what someone believes wrongly and then assuming that the polar opposite position is correct.
Biblical proofs of the sovereignty of God? What
is the “the sovereignty of God”? Does it mean that God has meticulous control over each and every event which occurs?
Or does it mean that he exercises a general control, boundaries outside which man cannot break through, but allowing a lot of freedom within those boundaries. If every horrible event is God’s doing, or even if every horrendous event is “allowed” by God to achieve a greater purpose, then why does he object to the evil actions of man? They are fulfilling God’s deeper purposes, aren’t they?
Obviously, God’s will is not being done through these acts. Otherwise, Christ’s instruction for us to pray, “Let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” would be meaningless.
In the case of the man born blind (John 9), certain things can not be explained away (and we should have no incentive to do so). First, Jesus said that the man's condition had nothing to do with anyone's sin, so we can rule out the suggestion that his disability is the result of anybody poorly exercising their free will. Second, Jesus healed the man, proving that the condition was not beyond God's ability to heal (nor, presumably, to have prevented in the first place). Third, that God healed him at this particular time suggests that God could have done so at any previous time, had He wished—meaning that the man was in that condition (i.e., not yet healed) for many years for no other reason than that God did not choose it to be otherwise. Fourth, if we should ask why God did not choose to heal him, prior to this incident—and even prior to his birth, so that he would not have been born blind—we have a direct answer from Jesus: "That the works of God might be revealed in him" (which God, presumably, saw as a "greater good" than would have been the absence of the disability from the man's birth.
Consider the words you wrote which I bolded. If there was reason other than God’s choice for the man to be in that condition, then a greater good or a deeper purpose could not have been the reason for the man's blindness during those many years.
If our theology knows no God who is capable of healing and protecting His people from every danger, and who has no angels capable of delivering His children from any harm from which He desires them to be exempt, then, in my opinion, our God is way too small. On the other hand, if our God is too sentimental to allow temporal suffering in His children's lives, in order to achieve an eternal benefit, then our God is too wimpy and uncaring—far less caring, in fact, than the average earthly parent. Given these options, I will most happily keep the God that I have now.
Please tell us who you are addressing. I’ve looked at the thread again, and I can’t find anyone promoting a small, incapable, sentimental, wimpy, and uncaring god. Nor can I find anyone who thinks God would not allow temporal suffering to achieve eternal benefit. What I find are people who do not ascribe every hideous, despicable act of man to a work of God (whether God actively executes it, or passively “allows” it) in order to achieve a greater good.
