I was anticipating that someone would mention Isaiah 45:7. Paidion mentions it, but accurately points out the proper rendering. If anyone is interested in an in-depth, lengthy treatment on this verse, go here. In the meantime, here are two points that author (Glenn Miller of Christian think-tank) makes concerning the question of God making evil:
(1) Evil is...intentions and intentional acts (both being 'acts' or 'personally directed events' and not 'things') of intelligent agents, that violate the God-derived principles of love, fairness, or loyalty.
(2) No, 'acts' and 'events' are not 'made'--they are 'done'. God made and created 'things' and 'agents', not their 'acts' or 'events'...He 'did' His own 'acts' (of course), but other agents 'do' their own 'acts'. So God did not 'make evil' (the phrase is meaningless and nonsensical).
God, Job and Protection
Hi Paidon,
You asked the following:
"You mentioned that the martyrs, Helen Kellar, etc. suffered for the sake of improvement in their eternal condition. Would you say, then, that those of us who have suffered very little will be deprived of this eternal gain?"
My answer:
Quite possibly. I have never dreamed that I am worthy of a place in the resurrection equal to that of many saints who have paid a higher price for their faith or have suffered more under trial than I have. I may miss out on something in eternity for having suffered little, but I will receive better than I deserve.
On the other hand, possibly not. The parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt.20:1-16) seems to indicate that some people work harder and longer, and suffer more, for their master than do others, whereas all receive the same coin. I have tended to see this "coin" as mere salvation, and figured that some of those workers will receive additional rewards and status that others do not receive (e.g., Luke 19:16-19). There is also a promise that those who receive a prophet or a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward—though the prophet and righteous man, seemingly pay a greater price for being such than their host does in receiving them. I don't know if this means the man who receives them will receive exactly the same reward, or merely that their reward will be salvation, just as is the righteous man's and the prophet's. The particulars of the respective rewards may differ somewhat.
Thus I don't know the answer to your question. I am prepared to not be disappointed in either case.
You asked the following:
"You mentioned that the martyrs, Helen Kellar, etc. suffered for the sake of improvement in their eternal condition. Would you say, then, that those of us who have suffered very little will be deprived of this eternal gain?"
My answer:
Quite possibly. I have never dreamed that I am worthy of a place in the resurrection equal to that of many saints who have paid a higher price for their faith or have suffered more under trial than I have. I may miss out on something in eternity for having suffered little, but I will receive better than I deserve.
On the other hand, possibly not. The parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt.20:1-16) seems to indicate that some people work harder and longer, and suffer more, for their master than do others, whereas all receive the same coin. I have tended to see this "coin" as mere salvation, and figured that some of those workers will receive additional rewards and status that others do not receive (e.g., Luke 19:16-19). There is also a promise that those who receive a prophet or a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward—though the prophet and righteous man, seemingly pay a greater price for being such than their host does in receiving them. I don't know if this means the man who receives them will receive exactly the same reward, or merely that their reward will be salvation, just as is the righteous man's and the prophet's. The particulars of the respective rewards may differ somewhat.
Thus I don't know the answer to your question. I am prepared to not be disappointed in either case.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Thanks again, Steve.
I, too, believe I shall be satisfied with whatever the LORD provides. Being confident that he will treat each person justly or fairly, each of us ought to be content about the matter even now before our salvation is complete. Being envious of someone who receives a greater reward than we, may be a part of this fallen world, but surely will not be a part of the next where the process of being conformed to the image of Christ, by the grace of God will have been completed.
I, too, believe I shall be satisfied with whatever the LORD provides. Being confident that he will treat each person justly or fairly, each of us ought to be content about the matter even now before our salvation is complete. Being envious of someone who receives a greater reward than we, may be a part of this fallen world, but surely will not be a part of the next where the process of being conformed to the image of Christ, by the grace of God will have been completed.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
This has been an interesting thread.
nonperformance - failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.
Just as a parent or someone responsible for the care of little children is responsible for what happens to a child because they have the ability to act to prevent harm. They are culpable not for doing something, for failure to act.
A lot of us are like Job. We expect God to explain Himself satisfactorily, to measure up to the standards we have for Him. God must measure up to the standard of a good human father. Seems rather audacious to me.
But isn't this precisely what God not only allowed, but willed in the case of His own son?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?
I have to agree with Steve. In our flight from Calvinism, we are also in danger of rejecting God's sovereignty. If "not a sparrow falls apart from the Father", surely nothing happens to us that God could not have prevented, and thus He is at least indirectly responsible. He is not caught by surprise. We recognize this concept under the legal term of "nonperformance":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.
nonperformance - failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.
Just as a parent or someone responsible for the care of little children is responsible for what happens to a child because they have the ability to act to prevent harm. They are culpable not for doing something, for failure to act.
And isn't it likely that a great number of them died in captivity before they were cured? And God in His sovereignty knew this and sent them there anyway.
Quote:
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.
Do you think that God is "asleep at the wheel", unable to prevent most suffering, or that He allows most of it for no purpose at all? You seem to indicate He allows it; there must be a reason He chooses not to intervene. It seems best to assume it is for good.Do specific examples of God allowing suffering for a purpose prove that God allows all suffering for a purpose?
A lot of us are like Job. We expect God to explain Himself satisfactorily, to measure up to the standards we have for Him. God must measure up to the standard of a good human father. Seems rather audacious to me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
I don't believe that the concept of God's sovereignty implies that he meticulously controls every event that occurs upon earth. I do not question that he has the power to do so. But he respects the free will of man too much for that.
Nor is he culpable because he chooses not to intervene in the unspeakable atrocities which take place regardless of the legal meaning of "non-performance". You speak of the audacity of expecting God to measure up to human standards. I think that that audacity has application to the supposition that he is culpable because of his "non-performance". I don't think we can infer that his non-performance is indicative of a "higher purpose" in each an every case of peoples' wicked deeds. Just give me an example of a "higher purpose" in the case of the torture and rape of a little girl. The statement that we are unlike God and are unable to see that higher purpose, is, in my opinion a cop-out. We were created in the image of God. That is why we are repulsed and sickened by such wicked actions ---- just as God is.
If God "allows" these horrendous events for a higher purpose, then why do we object that they happen? Are the laws and the courts whereby such evil doers are punished opposing the will of God?
It reminds me of the story of a Muslim who killed his wife, and then explained: "It was the will of God".
I do not have a definitive answer to the "problem of evil". I am leaning toward the non-intervention of God relating to the possible instabililty of the universe if he should always intervene. What would happen, for example, if God always prevented his children from falling off cliffs? The unfaithful would fall off as usual, while any disciple who accidentally fell off would float harmlessly to the ground. What then becomes of the "law of gravity"? It would no longer apply consistently. How could science proceed if there were no consistent natural laws?
Of all the explanations of the classic "problem of evil", I think the explanation that God permits it for a higher purpose, provides the worst witness to man concerning the true character of God, and turns the most people against him.
Nor is he culpable because he chooses not to intervene in the unspeakable atrocities which take place regardless of the legal meaning of "non-performance". You speak of the audacity of expecting God to measure up to human standards. I think that that audacity has application to the supposition that he is culpable because of his "non-performance". I don't think we can infer that his non-performance is indicative of a "higher purpose" in each an every case of peoples' wicked deeds. Just give me an example of a "higher purpose" in the case of the torture and rape of a little girl. The statement that we are unlike God and are unable to see that higher purpose, is, in my opinion a cop-out. We were created in the image of God. That is why we are repulsed and sickened by such wicked actions ---- just as God is.
If God "allows" these horrendous events for a higher purpose, then why do we object that they happen? Are the laws and the courts whereby such evil doers are punished opposing the will of God?
It reminds me of the story of a Muslim who killed his wife, and then explained: "It was the will of God".
I do not have a definitive answer to the "problem of evil". I am leaning toward the non-intervention of God relating to the possible instabililty of the universe if he should always intervene. What would happen, for example, if God always prevented his children from falling off cliffs? The unfaithful would fall off as usual, while any disciple who accidentally fell off would float harmlessly to the ground. What then becomes of the "law of gravity"? It would no longer apply consistently. How could science proceed if there were no consistent natural laws?
Of all the explanations of the classic "problem of evil", I think the explanation that God permits it for a higher purpose, provides the worst witness to man concerning the true character of God, and turns the most people against him.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Paidion-
I made the earlier suggestion that perhaps God has imposed a "self-limitation" on always intervening in the affairs of men. This seems to be along the same line of what you are suggesting, which I certainly agree with.
I do not believe that God is culpable for "non-performance" because I think there are laws in place (His) that He may not break. Nor do I believe that there is always a higher purpose. Sure, there are instances where there APPEARS to be a higher purpose in someone's suffering, but this doesnt mean that God caused or even allowed the initial suffering for the PURPOSE of the HIGHER purpose. Man, this is a tad confusing.
Further, the "higher purpose" argument just doesnt work in many cases. Why would a child of a parent living in a tribe in the jungles of south america be born with a horrible birth defect, so that the child dies w/in a few days of birth? I think the reason that this might happen is that sin has degraded the genetic code to the point where birth defects happen. I certainly do NOT think that God plays eeny meeny miney mo (for illustrative purposes) to decide who is going to be born with a birth defect today, or who will be involved in a horrible accident, or who will get cancer, etc. If these things happen (because we live in a fallen world) God is certainly able, generally through his disciples and their intervention, to get glory in these tragic situations.
I guess I am always taken back to the statements that Jesus made, specifically that if human parents, who are evil, know how to treat their children, how much more does the Father? Sure, i might have pain inflicted on my children (surgery, e.g.) if needed, but this is a far cry from me causing the injury or problem for some higher purpose.
I am a fairly new grandfather, and the thoughts(if I had the power) of somehow inflicting harm on her while she was in the womb for the purpose of, say, teaching her mom and dad patience in the end, turns my blood cold.
TK
I made the earlier suggestion that perhaps God has imposed a "self-limitation" on always intervening in the affairs of men. This seems to be along the same line of what you are suggesting, which I certainly agree with.
I do not believe that God is culpable for "non-performance" because I think there are laws in place (His) that He may not break. Nor do I believe that there is always a higher purpose. Sure, there are instances where there APPEARS to be a higher purpose in someone's suffering, but this doesnt mean that God caused or even allowed the initial suffering for the PURPOSE of the HIGHER purpose. Man, this is a tad confusing.
Further, the "higher purpose" argument just doesnt work in many cases. Why would a child of a parent living in a tribe in the jungles of south america be born with a horrible birth defect, so that the child dies w/in a few days of birth? I think the reason that this might happen is that sin has degraded the genetic code to the point where birth defects happen. I certainly do NOT think that God plays eeny meeny miney mo (for illustrative purposes) to decide who is going to be born with a birth defect today, or who will be involved in a horrible accident, or who will get cancer, etc. If these things happen (because we live in a fallen world) God is certainly able, generally through his disciples and their intervention, to get glory in these tragic situations.
I guess I am always taken back to the statements that Jesus made, specifically that if human parents, who are evil, know how to treat their children, how much more does the Father? Sure, i might have pain inflicted on my children (surgery, e.g.) if needed, but this is a far cry from me causing the injury or problem for some higher purpose.
I am a fairly new grandfather, and the thoughts(if I had the power) of somehow inflicting harm on her while she was in the womb for the purpose of, say, teaching her mom and dad patience in the end, turns my blood cold.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Our thinking seems to be similar on this issue, TK. I appreciated your suggestion that "sin has degraded the genetic code to the point where birth defects happen". That is precisely what I think about birth defects.
I think, too, that the genetic code passed on from Adam and Eve explains why we have inherited a sinful nature. We know that mental and emotional characteristics are inherited from our ancestors, and not merely physical characteristics.
So my understanding is that though we do not inherit SIN from Adam and Eve, we do inherit a sinful nature ---- the tendency to sin.
Some think that subsequent to regeneration the sinful nature continues alongside the new nature, and that the each is in continous struggle with the other. But the Scriptures state that "Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new." Surely one of the old things which have passed away, indeed the main old thing which has passed away, is the sinful nature.
In case anyone wishes to argue this point, I want to affirm that I am not thereby claiming that a regenerated person will never sin again.
I think, too, that the genetic code passed on from Adam and Eve explains why we have inherited a sinful nature. We know that mental and emotional characteristics are inherited from our ancestors, and not merely physical characteristics.
So my understanding is that though we do not inherit SIN from Adam and Eve, we do inherit a sinful nature ---- the tendency to sin.
Some think that subsequent to regeneration the sinful nature continues alongside the new nature, and that the each is in continous struggle with the other. But the Scriptures state that "Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new." Surely one of the old things which have passed away, indeed the main old thing which has passed away, is the sinful nature.
In case anyone wishes to argue this point, I want to affirm that I am not thereby claiming that a regenerated person will never sin again.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Paidion wrote:
TK
i have been reading a very helpful book by Watchman Nee entitled "The Spiritual Man." I am only on volume 1 of 3, but he discusses the fact that the sinful nature (our flesh/soul) was indeed crucified with Christ. He explains the relationship between what he demarcates as spirit, soul, and body, and what happened to them at the fall, and how it has been restored by what Jesus did. Of course getting it fully restored is a faith issue, or a "reckoning" issue. I can't wait to finish all 3 volumes.But the Scriptures state that "Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new." Surely one of the old things which have passed away, indeed the main old thing which has passed away, is the sinful nature.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)