Steve, on Monday's program you were asked to explain your position on the issue of divine protection from harm and God's will. I've been listening to Greg Boyd lately and his view on this seems a bit different than yours. Since death is a little easier to deal with, Greg uses the example of an innocent child being raped. The question he poses is basically this: Does God allow such things in order that someone pass a given test? If so, this seems to color God in an awful light since a loving father would never allow his child to be raped in order that someone might be tested.
Could it be that the fallen angelic realm (or whatever celestial breed the word "demon" refers to) has the same free will opportunity that humans possess? If so, could not these demons exercise (pardon the pun) their own free will to do us harm? It would seem that if God gave them a free will then he'd also allow them to utilize it. Or is it your position that God lets them use their free will, but brings good out of the situation... whether or not it's an actual test of the believer?
For example, a small child is tortured and raped (sorry for the repulsive imagery but it happens). God obviously didn't desire that a child be treated this way, but he allowed it to happen. The Calvinist view says God wanted it to happen. The open theist view might say that God didn't want it to happen at all and would then try to bring some good out of it. I'm guessing your view would be that God didn't desire it to happen, but allowed it in order to test someone. Would that be accurate?
I'm not saying I agree with Greg Boyd, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, as it tends to color our view of the Father.
God, Job and Protection
God, Job and Protection
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
It is hard to address an issue as emotional as the rape and the torture of a child with a clear head. I suppose we always make the victim in the hypothetical scenario a child because it underscores the innocence and helplessness of the victim. On the other hand, a rape and torture victim of any age is equally helpless, at that moment, and may be quite as innocent as a child is, in terms of provoking the assault.
What we are dealing with here, after we have stripped away the special emotional impact associated with this specific scenario, is the simple reality of criminal behavior and victimhood. The question is the same, whether we ask, "Why did the Lord allow someone to break into my car and steal my stereo?" or whether we ask, "Why did God allow the rape and murder of my child?" I am not suggesting that the two crimes are in any sense equal, but I am saying it is exactly the same philosophical question. In both cases, someone innocent has suffered at the hands of an evil perpetrator. It is only a difference of degree, though an extreme one.
It strikes me as somewhat arbitrary to say, "I have come to terms with the fact that God may cause some good to result from Joseph's being sold by his brothers into Egypt, and in his suffering innocently for thirteen years of slavery and imprisonment. However, I draw the line at trying to make sense out of the murder of a child."
I guess the questions that must be raised are,
"Why draw the line there? Why not much further back?"
"What principle informs my choice of where I draw the line?"
"Are such lines anything other than arbitrarily drawn?"
The real question is, Do bad things happen to people despite God's best efforts to protect those people from those assaults? If so, then there is no omnipotent God in the heavens. Something else is more powerful to harm than He is to protect. I think the devil's complaint about the "hedge," in the opening chapters of Job, bears eloquent testimony to the fact that God can prevent even Satan himself (and how much more his mortal thugs) from doing anything that God does not wish to permit him to do.
No one who lacks an eternal perspective can possibly see anything but insensitivity in my next observation—but I will say it anyway. If the test is this lifetime, and the rewards are in the next life for eternity, then the very worst imaginable suffering for a whole lifetime (God forbid that this should actually happen to anyone!) would seem to be worth the exchange for eternal glory and vindication ruling with Christ.
Paul suffered innocently and unjustly in most ways imaginable, but it was his opinion that "our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor.4:17), and "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Rom.8:18).
Needless to say, the great tragedy for many is that they will suffer through this lifetime and yet never reign with Christ, because they did not turn to Him who strikes them (Isa.9:13). Such as fail these tests are to be pitied indeed. However, it is my opinion (if we imagine the victim to be a child) that children get a free "pass" with reference to such tests—for "of such is the kingdom of heaven."
I do not find this doctrine emotionally easy, any more than does anybody else. However, I will not seek to ease the difficulty at the expense of saying that God really wanted to protect the innocent, but He just wasn't as strong as the perpetrator—so He could do nothing. Such an expedient surrenders any basis for the saint's temporal security under the care of the Good Shepherd.
Our view of God must be the hub from which all other doctrines radiate. We cannot place the ability to protect innocent people from harm outside the range of God's competence without giving away the whole farm. What, then, has become of "The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him, and delivers them"(Ps.34:7)?
To say, on the other hand, that God saw some possible good in allowing such-and-such suffering is not compromising God's goodness, any more than saying, that a 17th-century surgeon was unloving because he subjected a child to the pain and trauma of sawing off a his gangrenous leg, in order to save his life. We can understand the doctor's rationale. We may not be able to understand, or appreciate God's—but it is a long jump from this lack of understanding to the point of being able to say that God had no beneficent reasons for what He allowed to occur.
What we are dealing with here, after we have stripped away the special emotional impact associated with this specific scenario, is the simple reality of criminal behavior and victimhood. The question is the same, whether we ask, "Why did the Lord allow someone to break into my car and steal my stereo?" or whether we ask, "Why did God allow the rape and murder of my child?" I am not suggesting that the two crimes are in any sense equal, but I am saying it is exactly the same philosophical question. In both cases, someone innocent has suffered at the hands of an evil perpetrator. It is only a difference of degree, though an extreme one.
It strikes me as somewhat arbitrary to say, "I have come to terms with the fact that God may cause some good to result from Joseph's being sold by his brothers into Egypt, and in his suffering innocently for thirteen years of slavery and imprisonment. However, I draw the line at trying to make sense out of the murder of a child."
I guess the questions that must be raised are,
"Why draw the line there? Why not much further back?"
"What principle informs my choice of where I draw the line?"
"Are such lines anything other than arbitrarily drawn?"
The real question is, Do bad things happen to people despite God's best efforts to protect those people from those assaults? If so, then there is no omnipotent God in the heavens. Something else is more powerful to harm than He is to protect. I think the devil's complaint about the "hedge," in the opening chapters of Job, bears eloquent testimony to the fact that God can prevent even Satan himself (and how much more his mortal thugs) from doing anything that God does not wish to permit him to do.
No one who lacks an eternal perspective can possibly see anything but insensitivity in my next observation—but I will say it anyway. If the test is this lifetime, and the rewards are in the next life for eternity, then the very worst imaginable suffering for a whole lifetime (God forbid that this should actually happen to anyone!) would seem to be worth the exchange for eternal glory and vindication ruling with Christ.
Paul suffered innocently and unjustly in most ways imaginable, but it was his opinion that "our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor.4:17), and "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Rom.8:18).
Needless to say, the great tragedy for many is that they will suffer through this lifetime and yet never reign with Christ, because they did not turn to Him who strikes them (Isa.9:13). Such as fail these tests are to be pitied indeed. However, it is my opinion (if we imagine the victim to be a child) that children get a free "pass" with reference to such tests—for "of such is the kingdom of heaven."
I do not find this doctrine emotionally easy, any more than does anybody else. However, I will not seek to ease the difficulty at the expense of saying that God really wanted to protect the innocent, but He just wasn't as strong as the perpetrator—so He could do nothing. Such an expedient surrenders any basis for the saint's temporal security under the care of the Good Shepherd.
Our view of God must be the hub from which all other doctrines radiate. We cannot place the ability to protect innocent people from harm outside the range of God's competence without giving away the whole farm. What, then, has become of "The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him, and delivers them"(Ps.34:7)?
To say, on the other hand, that God saw some possible good in allowing such-and-such suffering is not compromising God's goodness, any more than saying, that a 17th-century surgeon was unloving because he subjected a child to the pain and trauma of sawing off a his gangrenous leg, in order to save his life. We can understand the doctor's rationale. We may not be able to understand, or appreciate God's—but it is a long jump from this lack of understanding to the point of being able to say that God had no beneficent reasons for what He allowed to occur.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve, that was a very thoughtful response and anyone who would accuse you of insensitivity on this matter needs to have their head examined. I certainly understand the points you've made. But could I trouble you to address the topic of free will and determism as it relates to the suffering of a believer? If humans are free-will agents, as I suppose they are, God would necessarily have to let them do things he'd rather they not do, which includes harming the innocent. In such cases, he could prevent the injustice, but only at the expense of negating human choice.
I want to trust that every hit I take in life (not counting those times I yield to sin) is the result of God testing me. It would be a great comfort for me to know that. But it just seems as though God must respect the very liberty he granted us... to do good or otherwise. How the two are compatible is what makes my brain itch. How can God protect us with such care that our feet don't hit rocks, yet stones are dropped on our heads for not denying the faith? I hope you feel my frustration in wanting to trust that all injustices done to believers are done for their own benefit, but philisophical problems are raised. Perhaps you're right in saying that a more eternal perspective is required. It's a weakness of mine to see trajedy and injustice in light of our temporal existence, rather than in the age to come.
I want to trust that every hit I take in life (not counting those times I yield to sin) is the result of God testing me. It would be a great comfort for me to know that. But it just seems as though God must respect the very liberty he granted us... to do good or otherwise. How the two are compatible is what makes my brain itch. How can God protect us with such care that our feet don't hit rocks, yet stones are dropped on our heads for not denying the faith? I hope you feel my frustration in wanting to trust that all injustices done to believers are done for their own benefit, but philisophical problems are raised. Perhaps you're right in saying that a more eternal perspective is required. It's a weakness of mine to see trajedy and injustice in light of our temporal existence, rather than in the age to come.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
JC wrote:
Is "allowing it to happen" any less culpable that doing the thing?
It would seem to be the case with God, since it would seem within His power to prevent anything He wants, with a snap of the finger, so to speak.
Therefore, I must conclude that it is never God's will for evil to happen, but that God has set up laws that He must follow that prevent him from interfering with every evil that might take place. This is different than saying he is unable to prevent things. For example, God could suspend the law of gravity to prevent injury or death to someone who falls from a scaffolding , but does he do so? i dont recall hearing of people who have magically "floated" to the ground unharmed.
When Adam and Eve sinned, was not Satan given the "deed" to the earth? He owns it!- at least for a while. Part of the curse is that God will not intervene every time, whether it be natural disasters, criminal acts, sickness, or any of a countless number of things.
So, are we helpless? not at all. I believe that we, as believers, have authority to counter evil. I believe that is part of God's plan. In other words, God doesnt just snap His fingers and take care of a problem- he expects US to do so.
I probably haven't said this very well, but hopefully you will get my point.
TK[/i]
I hear this thing all the time-- but when you say God "allowed it to happen" what exactly do you mean?but he allowed it to happen.
Is "allowing it to happen" any less culpable that doing the thing?
It would seem to be the case with God, since it would seem within His power to prevent anything He wants, with a snap of the finger, so to speak.
Therefore, I must conclude that it is never God's will for evil to happen, but that God has set up laws that He must follow that prevent him from interfering with every evil that might take place. This is different than saying he is unable to prevent things. For example, God could suspend the law of gravity to prevent injury or death to someone who falls from a scaffolding , but does he do so? i dont recall hearing of people who have magically "floated" to the ground unharmed.
When Adam and Eve sinned, was not Satan given the "deed" to the earth? He owns it!- at least for a while. Part of the curse is that God will not intervene every time, whether it be natural disasters, criminal acts, sickness, or any of a countless number of things.
So, are we helpless? not at all. I believe that we, as believers, have authority to counter evil. I believe that is part of God's plan. In other words, God doesnt just snap His fingers and take care of a problem- he expects US to do so.
I probably haven't said this very well, but hopefully you will get my point.
TK[/i]
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)
JC,
To affirm that man has a free will does not mean that God is obligated to let man accomplish whatever he wishes. Mankind exercised their free will in attempting to build the Tower of Babel, but God did not permit them to succeed, and He intervened supernaturally to prevent it. The Rabshekah, exercising his free will (or that of His king) intended to conquer Jerusalem—and had the manpower to predict success—but an angel of the Lord was sent to kill 185,000 of his troops in one night, changing the outcome completely. Forty men exercised their free will in determining to eat nothing until they had killed Paul, but God arranged for one of Paul's relatives to overhear the plot and to take action thwarting their plot. "For they intended evil against you; They devised a plot which they are not able to perform" (Psalm 21:11). The devising of the plot is the exercise of their free will; whether they succeed in performing it is God's prerogative.
When you think about it, free will never means that man can do anything he wants to. There are several candidates, right now, who wish to become president of the United States—that is their will—but only one will find his/her desire fulfilled. The rest will be disappointed. Men choose to pursue many enterprises that Providence prevents from materializing. Millions of times every day, all around the world, men and women exercise their free choice to pursue certain goals, but find their dreams frustrated by the actual event. This usually does not require any obvious supernatural intervention from God that we know of (though this does not mean God had no hand in the outcome). People, though they do have free will, are simply not in control of the future. "Man proposes; God disposes."
As for TK's question about people floating down from scaffolding while falling, I know of no such case. However, I have heard of someone whose parachute failed to open, and they survived impact with the ground. A tornado recently picked-up a baby and hurled it something like 100 yards, and it was found unharmed (though its mother was killed). There are reported cases of soldiers being shot in battle, but the bullet being stopped by a Bible, or some other object, in their shirt pockets. There have been cases of would-be robbers firing their pistols at store owners, only to find their guns jammed. Examples may be multiplied of cases where God could be said to have intervened to protect someone from otherwise certain disaster. No, it does not seem to happen often, but in every case that God does something like this, He declares that, if He wished, He could do the same in every such case. He merely does not choose to do so.
That means that the harm that comes to me could have as easily been prevented by God, had He desired to intervene. I don't think His non-intervention can be explained as either impotence on His part, nor His observation of certain non-interventionist laws by which He has bound Himself to stay uninvolved. Where were those laws on the occasions when He did intervene?
The doctrine of free will and human responsibility only requires that people be given the freedom to choose to be either loyal or resistant to God—to seek Him or to ignore Him. Every person makes such a choice. That is enough to render God's judgments and rewards reasonable. He does not even have to let every moral choice of a man be made without His interference. God can harden the heart of a Pharaoh, and he can blind the eyes of the Jews of Jesus' generation—effectively canceling their freedom of choice in those situations. However, men are judged, and righteously, for those choices that God does allow them to make freely. God has never made man the sovereign ruler of history. Even the most powerful kings are subject to His providence (Prov.21:1).
So how does my ability to trust God for protection jibe with the free will of the one who would hurt me? Simply in this way: the one who wishes to hurt me has already exercised his/her free will in choosing that course of action. If they were to drop dead on the way over to my house, they would justly stand condemned for the deed that they had planned to do, though I would remain unharmed. There is nothing in my theology that says that God must protect me from the malice of people, but my theology does tell me that, whenever God wishes to protect me, there is no force in the universe that can prevent His doing so. This leads to the conclusion that, if God did not protect me from something, it was because it was not His will to do so in this case. And I have lived most happily with the assumption that His will is always reasonable and beneficent.
To affirm that man has a free will does not mean that God is obligated to let man accomplish whatever he wishes. Mankind exercised their free will in attempting to build the Tower of Babel, but God did not permit them to succeed, and He intervened supernaturally to prevent it. The Rabshekah, exercising his free will (or that of His king) intended to conquer Jerusalem—and had the manpower to predict success—but an angel of the Lord was sent to kill 185,000 of his troops in one night, changing the outcome completely. Forty men exercised their free will in determining to eat nothing until they had killed Paul, but God arranged for one of Paul's relatives to overhear the plot and to take action thwarting their plot. "For they intended evil against you; They devised a plot which they are not able to perform" (Psalm 21:11). The devising of the plot is the exercise of their free will; whether they succeed in performing it is God's prerogative.
When you think about it, free will never means that man can do anything he wants to. There are several candidates, right now, who wish to become president of the United States—that is their will—but only one will find his/her desire fulfilled. The rest will be disappointed. Men choose to pursue many enterprises that Providence prevents from materializing. Millions of times every day, all around the world, men and women exercise their free choice to pursue certain goals, but find their dreams frustrated by the actual event. This usually does not require any obvious supernatural intervention from God that we know of (though this does not mean God had no hand in the outcome). People, though they do have free will, are simply not in control of the future. "Man proposes; God disposes."
As for TK's question about people floating down from scaffolding while falling, I know of no such case. However, I have heard of someone whose parachute failed to open, and they survived impact with the ground. A tornado recently picked-up a baby and hurled it something like 100 yards, and it was found unharmed (though its mother was killed). There are reported cases of soldiers being shot in battle, but the bullet being stopped by a Bible, or some other object, in their shirt pockets. There have been cases of would-be robbers firing their pistols at store owners, only to find their guns jammed. Examples may be multiplied of cases where God could be said to have intervened to protect someone from otherwise certain disaster. No, it does not seem to happen often, but in every case that God does something like this, He declares that, if He wished, He could do the same in every such case. He merely does not choose to do so.
That means that the harm that comes to me could have as easily been prevented by God, had He desired to intervene. I don't think His non-intervention can be explained as either impotence on His part, nor His observation of certain non-interventionist laws by which He has bound Himself to stay uninvolved. Where were those laws on the occasions when He did intervene?
The doctrine of free will and human responsibility only requires that people be given the freedom to choose to be either loyal or resistant to God—to seek Him or to ignore Him. Every person makes such a choice. That is enough to render God's judgments and rewards reasonable. He does not even have to let every moral choice of a man be made without His interference. God can harden the heart of a Pharaoh, and he can blind the eyes of the Jews of Jesus' generation—effectively canceling their freedom of choice in those situations. However, men are judged, and righteously, for those choices that God does allow them to make freely. God has never made man the sovereign ruler of history. Even the most powerful kings are subject to His providence (Prov.21:1).
So how does my ability to trust God for protection jibe with the free will of the one who would hurt me? Simply in this way: the one who wishes to hurt me has already exercised his/her free will in choosing that course of action. If they were to drop dead on the way over to my house, they would justly stand condemned for the deed that they had planned to do, though I would remain unharmed. There is nothing in my theology that says that God must protect me from the malice of people, but my theology does tell me that, whenever God wishes to protect me, there is no force in the universe that can prevent His doing so. This leads to the conclusion that, if God did not protect me from something, it was because it was not His will to do so in this case. And I have lived most happily with the assumption that His will is always reasonable and beneficent.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
can anyone tell me if "limited" is the correct translation? other versions, say provoke, vexed, etc.Ps. 78:41: Yes, again and again they tempted God,
And limited the Holy One of Israel. (NKJV)
thanks! 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)
My translation says:TK wrote:can anyone tell me if "limited" is the correct translation? other versions, say provoke, vexed, etc.Ps. 78:41: Yes, again and again they tempted God,
And limited the Holy One of Israel. (NKJV)
thanks! TK
78:41 They again challenged God,
and offended the Holy One of Israel.
Or “wounded, hurt.” The verb occurs only here in the Old Testament.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Another thing came to mind- specifically this passage, from Mt. 17:
I think that a view of God's sovereignty that says everything that happens is God's will because he "allowed" it to happen is dangerous, and at a minimum is a convenient doctrine that relieves Christians of all personal responsibility.
TK
When Jesus was told by his disciples that they could not cast out the demon, he did not say to them "Well, if it was God's will you could have cast it out." Instead he used rather harsh language rebuking their inability to do so. In other words, God COULD have cast out the demon in spite of the disciples' unbelief, but would not do so. Jesus was successful because he was operating in faith. Implicit in Jesus' rebuke is that the disciples could have been successful as well. The disciples had success earlier on, when they came back rejoicing in their successes in healing and delivering.14 And when they had come to the multitude, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying, 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic[c] and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 So I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not cure him.”
17 Then Jesus answered and said, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him; and the child was cured from that very hour.
I think that a view of God's sovereignty that says everything that happens is God's will because he "allowed" it to happen is dangerous, and at a minimum is a convenient doctrine that relieves Christians of all personal responsibility.
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)
thanks allyn--
but i am wondering why the KJV/NKJV says "limited." isnt that a possibly correct interpretation?
TK
but i am wondering why the KJV/NKJV says "limited." isnt that a possibly correct interpretation?
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)
The fact that there are times when miracles do not occur because of someone's lack of faith is not exactly related to my points above. Certainly there are things that happen which wouldn't have happened, and there are things that don't happen which would have happened, had God's people been more obedient, prayed more, had more faith, etc. No one with a theology like mine would ever suggest that everything that happens is what God would have preferred to happen, if only people would have been more cooperative. I don't believe in meticulous providence, nor in unconditional results.
What I have been discussing is God's ability to prevent anything that He is determined to prevent. It seems indisputable that everything that happens could have been prevented by God, had He determined to prevent it. The Bible is explicit about the fact that God will do whatever He has determined to do and that no power can stay His hand, when He intends to do some work (Ps.115:3; 135:6/ Isa.43:13; 46:10; Dan.4:35). But we must distinguish between the things God determines to do and the things He assigns men to do. God often does not intervene in such a manner as to guarantee that we do what we have been told to do.
Many things happen that God does not prefer, but that He does not (and is under no obligation to) prevent. The loss of a soul would be an example. It happens all the time.
But not really "all the time." Sometimes God intervenes, when it is important to Him that a thing not be left to chance or human cooperation. On a certain day, God appeared to Saul in a vision, bringing an end to his career of persecution (Acts 9). Had God chosen to, He might have done this on an earlier day, and fewer Christians would have suffered, as a result. On a different day, God struck Herod dead (Acts 12:23), so that worms ate him and he died. There is no reason to believe that He could not have done the same thing earlier, had He wished, before Herod executed the Apostle James (Ibid., v.2)—thereby keeping James alive.
There is nothing (other than lack of prayer, perhaps) to prevent God from doing the same thing to a Pharaoh, a Nebuchadnezzar, a Joseph Stalin or an Adolph Hitler that He did to Saul, or that He did to Herod. No man can take so much as one breath more than God grants him (Dan.5:23). Man may have free will, but God does not owe any sinner a single minute of life beyond the point that God wishes to tolerate his sorry existence. This means that, with reference to the careers of would-be perpetrators, and the damage they are able to do or not do, God holds all the cards.
This is unrelated to the questions raised about whether everything that God wants to see done really is inevitably done. I am sure that my answer about this would be the same as yours. When God commits a matter into the hands of man, there is every possibility that the project will be botched. However, the physical safety and longevity of the saints is not a responsibility that He has committed to men, but rather to the angels (Ps.34:7; 91-11-12/ Heb.1:14). These are the reliable ones, who survived the first purge. They do not disobey.
We would not be instructed to pray, "Deliver us from the evil one," unless we were to assume that the One to whom we are submitting our request is entirely capable of delivering the goods.
If we were obliged to conclude that the malice of men could do us any harm that God really intended to prevent, then how could we confidently say,"The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?" (Heb.13:6)?
What I have been discussing is God's ability to prevent anything that He is determined to prevent. It seems indisputable that everything that happens could have been prevented by God, had He determined to prevent it. The Bible is explicit about the fact that God will do whatever He has determined to do and that no power can stay His hand, when He intends to do some work (Ps.115:3; 135:6/ Isa.43:13; 46:10; Dan.4:35). But we must distinguish between the things God determines to do and the things He assigns men to do. God often does not intervene in such a manner as to guarantee that we do what we have been told to do.
Many things happen that God does not prefer, but that He does not (and is under no obligation to) prevent. The loss of a soul would be an example. It happens all the time.
But not really "all the time." Sometimes God intervenes, when it is important to Him that a thing not be left to chance or human cooperation. On a certain day, God appeared to Saul in a vision, bringing an end to his career of persecution (Acts 9). Had God chosen to, He might have done this on an earlier day, and fewer Christians would have suffered, as a result. On a different day, God struck Herod dead (Acts 12:23), so that worms ate him and he died. There is no reason to believe that He could not have done the same thing earlier, had He wished, before Herod executed the Apostle James (Ibid., v.2)—thereby keeping James alive.
There is nothing (other than lack of prayer, perhaps) to prevent God from doing the same thing to a Pharaoh, a Nebuchadnezzar, a Joseph Stalin or an Adolph Hitler that He did to Saul, or that He did to Herod. No man can take so much as one breath more than God grants him (Dan.5:23). Man may have free will, but God does not owe any sinner a single minute of life beyond the point that God wishes to tolerate his sorry existence. This means that, with reference to the careers of would-be perpetrators, and the damage they are able to do or not do, God holds all the cards.
This is unrelated to the questions raised about whether everything that God wants to see done really is inevitably done. I am sure that my answer about this would be the same as yours. When God commits a matter into the hands of man, there is every possibility that the project will be botched. However, the physical safety and longevity of the saints is not a responsibility that He has committed to men, but rather to the angels (Ps.34:7; 91-11-12/ Heb.1:14). These are the reliable ones, who survived the first purge. They do not disobey.
We would not be instructed to pray, "Deliver us from the evil one," unless we were to assume that the One to whom we are submitting our request is entirely capable of delivering the goods.
If we were obliged to conclude that the malice of men could do us any harm that God really intended to prevent, then how could we confidently say,"The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?" (Heb.13:6)?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve