Craig,

Some of this is only slightly related to open theism. You’ll find that open theists don’t all agree on theodicy, or the warfare worldview, or providence, etc. There’s room for diversity on the question of just how actively involved God gets.

I think Greg’s right on when it comes to the general picture. The cosmos is caught up in a struggle between good and evil (or, more specifically, between God and fallen angelic beings committed to working contrary to God’s purposes). It doesn’t look to me like you’re questioning this much. The issue is how to conceive of God working to achieve his loving purposes in such a conflict, right?

So, on your first question. If we grant free wills (angelic and human) other than God’s some which work with God and others that work contrary to God, then we have a plausible account for why the world LOOKS the way it does, right? There’s much goodness and love in the world. And there is much evil. Just what we’d expect.

Greg’s burden is to relocate the mystery of evil in ‘wills’ other than God’s ‘will’. That’s pretty much it. If evil occurs, it’s fundamentally a failure of 'wills' to conform to God’s will for it. This INCLUDES divine judgment; so, should God drop by and kick the furniture over and spank  folks, that remains a failure of the world to conform to God’s purposes. God judged and disciplined, yes, but it’s always a response to some failure on the part of the world to conform to his purposes and plans. What I would say (and I think Greg would agree), is that God is always present in all things, on some level, working to minimize evil and maximize good within the constraints of the various free wills that distinguish the world from him. Sometimes God doesn’t get ANY of the good he would like. Sometimes he gets SOME of the good he works for. But since God’s will and efforts aren’t the ONLY factors that determine outcomes, it’s generally impossible after the fact for us to unravel the knot of any particular event and identify exactly which factors contributed (and in which ways) to the final outcome, e.g., this part was God, that part was you, that over there was the Devil, and these are due to demons, and those are the result of…you get the idea.

This means there’s a certain ambiguity to the world and all our explanations of it. So YOUR question, if I understand it, is: Does this ambiguity mean we are never justified in thanking God for good and not thanking God for, say, some natural catastrophe that God MIGHT have been involved with directing as a form of judgment?

I'd begin by suggesting that all good that occurs in the world happens on account of God and this in itself is justification enough for thanking God. I mean, we have no independent existence or goodness of our own. Anytime something good or loving occurs, it’s because God freely and lovingly created us, sustains the world and maintains his image in us, and empowers us who bear his image to want the good and know when we’ve approximated it. As James admits, “Every good and perfect gift is from the Father of heavenly lights.” So I give thanks to God whether my healing happened supernaturally or naturally (through the use of medicine)--or whether the guy next to me who was prayed for IN THE SAME PRAYER wasn't heald though I was--for in my perspective the distinction between natural/supernatural is nominal. We live in a one-story universe—the medicine is God at work too. So whenEVER the world works as it should, or even isn’t a bad as it could be—I see God at work in, with, under, and through created instrumentalities achieving something good. And since God owes us nothing, i.e., nothing we can do can place God under obligation to us, I see “all” good done by any human agent as a reason to praise and thank God as the ground of our existence and the empowering grace at work in us.

What do I do about explaining a car accident in which one child dies and the one lives? Did God pick and choose? Well, if all outcomes are explained by supposing God picked and chose precisely which outcomes occur, then you’ve essentially abandoned the warfare worldview and have adopted something more deterministic. But if God doesn’t always get what God wants, as seems evident, then we should expect—however painful it is—to find good and suffering seated next to each other—in a car, in a womb carrying twins, on a plane, wherever. But if God isn't picking and chosing who gets healed and spared and who doesn't, then does that mean God has NOTHING to do with determining outcomes for which we can justifiably thank him? I'd say no, the complexity of creation doesn't preclude divine involvement, for not all involvement need be determinative. God, so I'm supposing, is maximally invovled within the constraints of the freedoms that he empowers as part of having created the world at all. That means that if the WHOLE TRUTH be told about any particuar instance of evil, God's efforts on behalf of preventing it will be PART of the truth, while human and angelic wills will constitute their portion of the truth.

Because of the ambiguity inherent in the complexity of factors we can never say for sure exactly which factors account for this or that portion of outcome. But what we should never be ambiguous about is our knowledge that however painful or convoluted the outcome, God did all God could do—given the freedom of the world he granted and his overarching purposes—to maximize good and minimize evil, and THAT, Craig, means a) you have no reason to plunge into agnosticism or unbelief, and b) there is always reason to thank God when the complexity of factors defies our abilities to account for everything. We thank God always Not FOR the suffering or evil, but IN the suffering BECAUSE God is never absent or so bereft of resources that his grace is not available to those who (as Paul says in Romans) will work together with God for good. And for any evil, we can always assume that perhaps the outcome, as painful and unpleasant as it is, would have been much worse were it not for God’s involvement.

If you want a specific accounting in Excel, with all the contributing factors listed in columns and all the relevant percentages of influence contributed, so that you can explain without remainder what part is divine and what part is angelic and which part is human, etc., then I’m sorry to say there is no such accounting. Greg doesn’t have one and couldn’t offer one if he tried. Calvinism just has one column—God’s will accounts for it all. As far as I’m concerned the only unambiguous accounting/explanation we receive is the Cross. THERE God tells us in no uncertain terms—I love you THIS much. I’m THIS involved, THIS committed. And THAT event is what reassures me that when my son (and none of the other passengers) dies in a car crash that it is NOT the case that “God just picked him to die and picked the others to live.” What DID happen? Jesus died for us. That’s what happened. And THAT same crucified love is the same love at work in all things to maximize good and minimize evil in the world. If some outcome is a bitter mixture of the two, then I thank God that THAT outcome represents God doing all GOD could do, given the factors, to maximize good.

So if I ever want to think that things could have been better (and they almost always can), I go to PEOPLE (first MYSELF, then other believers in the Church) for an explanation of why the world isn’t better than it could be.

Gotta run for now.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 10/10/2011 1:40:22 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 10/9/2011 6:00:45 PM (GMT-5)

Craig,

Your last question is: If God is “radical love,” how does he zap Ananias and Sapphira? And if he DID zap Ananias and Sapphira, then how are we to see killing them as radically loving. And in that case how can we claim that Katrina or other natural disasters aren't God doing the same sort of thing he did with Ananias and Sapphira?

A few of us have pressured Greg through the years to acknowledge more clearly (and publically) that radical love can indeed be involved (complicitly involved) in the death of people as a form of judgment. In other words, when God judges people, it is love that judges. Bringing about Ananias and Saphira’s death WAS the most loving thing to do—the outcome of God doing all God could do—given the constraints of the freedoms he has to grant, etc.—to maximize good and minimize evil. Greg wants to describe such divine judgment in terms of God “backing off” or “stepping out of the way” so that evil wills are unobstructed in their intentions. Some of us see God’s judgment in more “active” terms. I mean, it’s hard to make sense of Peter’s pronouncement of judgment and their sudden death as God just “backing off.” I understand that Greg is reluctant to see God as too “hands on” when it comes to judgment, no doubt because his concept of perfect love requires a “hands off” approach. But others of us don’t see Greg’s particular approach as feasible. There are too many specific judgments that occur precisely as foretold by prophetic words, even in the NT. For example, Paul curses Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (Acts, 1^st Missionary Journey) and specifies, “You’ll now be blind….” Elsewhere he calls down judgment upon objectors when they behave under the influence of demons.

Some of us are able to see our way through to describing perfect love as sometimes “doing” such things “to people” (through human agents of course) and not just “backing off” to let evil wills have “their way.” This is very difficult to do IF you think those who die from such judgment are consigned to an irrevocable and eternal conscious torment. It’s easier to account for on a universalist soteriology and providence.

So what might WE know or say about such judgment? Might we know when God is involved or not? One thing might help here. When God DOES judge people so radically, as far as I can tell, he announces it so that people KNOW it’s him at work. As far as I can tell God wants such judgment to be as helpful and redemptive as possible. It’s in his advantage to do so. So he tells prophets, or sends dreams, or has Peter or Paul make the connection explicit so that people know it’s him. This goes for individual cases or national judgment. It’s what love WOULD do when it has to lower the boom. Tell your kids WHY you’re spanking them, right? So it seems a safe default position to assume that if God hasn’t let us know otherwise, natural disasters are NOT God acting in judgment.

Tom

Once again, welcome. 

Post Edited (One Love) : 10/10/2011 5:44:22 AM (GMT-5)

Craig: Ananias and Saphira only told a small lie about how much they had given/planned to give to the church. I know so many Christians who have done so much worst in the name of God/Jesus etc. Why should they be the ones to be killed? Plus the text says they were under Satan's influence. So obviously Satan had a card to play in this round as well, not just the two humans.

Tom: In YOUR eyes they only told a small lie. But perhaps far more is going on here and far more at stake at this early juncture. The reference to “Satan” is beside the point in my view. If it’s not just Peter’s way of attributing all evil to Satan (in which case it’s true of all of our sin), then the two of them are possessed by the Satan’s own personal presence, the Creep himself. And if that’s the case, then perhaps you have your answer. But I don’t think they were possessed in this specific manner.

Craig: So once again, what was SO BAD about the actions that A and S did to deserve such a harsh punishment? Especially given the fact that MUCH worst has been done by Christians in the last 2000 years.

Tom: Try not to judge it all, or let your faith rest entirely on how much of our accounts get settled on THIS side of the grave. To you and me physical death is the END. But to God it’s just a juncture, just an intersection, in a longer journey.

Seems to me our options are limited:

1)    The story is fictional.

2)    Some prophets/apostles have the power to kill people which they can exercise on the basis of their own judgment and which might or might not end up being what God would have done in that case.

3)    God, through Peter’s agency on some level, brought about A and S’s deaths and this in fact  WAS NOT the wisest/most loving thing to do which we are ABLE to judge given our limited perspective on things.

4)    God, through Peter’s agency on some level, brought about A and S’s deaths and this in fact WAS the wisest/most loving thing to do which we are NOT ABLE to judge given our limited perspective on things.

(4) has my vote. There are lots of reasons for not concluding that (3) is the truth.

Craig: Whose to say God wont zap me for a particular sin I do?

Tom: It's about perspective and gratefulness, Craig. Do you think you DESERVE to live another second? Does the Cross really mean God OWES you another moment? Now, I suppose that IF you find youself in EXACTLY the same circumstances A and S were in—same context, contributing factors, things at stake, etc., all right down the line—then you might just have God’s prophet or apostle administer the same judgment. But given that what happened with A and S has only happened ONCE in 2,000 years, my guess is that you aren't in danger of getting zapped.

Craig: If Jesus died for my sins completely then why is God still "punishing" people for their sins by killing them off in the NT?

Tom: Why do you think Jesus’ dying for our sins precludes painful judgments or chastisements for the unrepentant which include death? Does Jesus' dying for me mean I get to sin with impunity?

Craig: I dont know about you, but every time I do sin I worry that God is going to strike me dead like he did A and S. This is NOT a healthy way to have a relationship...I cant live my life being afraid God is going to kill me.

Tom: Trust me, Craig, if you were REALLY afraid of being struke dead every time you sin...you wouldn't sin. But you follow through and sin in spite of your fear of being struck dead. Think about it. So you either really fear dying every time you sin but sin in spite of your fear because your sin is in fact worth more to you than your own life OR you don’t REALLY fear dropping dead every time you sin. Which do you think it is?

Craig, look, by you own confession you’ve acknowledged that most people (99.99+%) who lie to God are NOT struck dead by God. That's obvious. How many times have people lied in the past 2,000 years? Right. How many have been struck dead by God for it? Two. Right. Are you're afraid? But most people, as you’ve noted, who do far worse than lying to God are also not struck dead by God on the spot. As far as you know, A and S are the ONLY people in 2,000 of church history that you know about who have been killed by God. SO, you do the math. To fear dead on account of lying is a bit irrational. You have every good reason to assume that you won’t be struck dead for just any infraction. It’s safe to think (because it's true) that God works with us and grows us in grace over time and puts up with a lot. BUT…God doesn’t necessarily OWE us a full life of 70+ years.

Craig: I dont know man..my relationship with God is on the rocks because I simply cant trust Him.

Tom: You trust him or you trust yourself ultimately. If you let go of God, it’s because you trust your own judgment given the tiniest perspective imaginable that you have on things, as if you really take in enough of all the contributing factors to justifiably conclude that God can’t be trusted. That's what refusing to trust him because of A and S amounts to. And it is a refusal...not an inability...to trust. You're standing in front of the same bloody Cross I'm at, and I've seen enough so-called reasons to conclude that God can't be trusted IF he exists or doesn't exist at all...and here I am overwhelmed with reasons to be grateful and to love him. I'm no different than you. Can you trust the Cross?

Craig: I simply cant trust Him. Especially after reading some of the stories in the Bible...

Tom: Would that include the story of God’s dying for you on the Cross? If the Cross is the center of all stories—and it arguably IS, as Jesus himself said—then let THAT center reorganize the rest for you. Let the fact that God loves enough to incarnate and die for us be the one SURE thing about God around which all the UNSURE things can then revolve. Trust that God sees some things going on with A and S that you don’t see, and perhaps couldn’t see and evaluate, certainly not accurately enough to judge God’s actions. Don’t let your ignorance of the whole truth about A and S be the basis for abandoning what you know to be the truth about Jesus on the Cross.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 10/23/2011 8:02:42 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 10/23/2011 9:58:48 PM (GMT-5)