quote:

---

Colossian 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and FOR him.

---

Was it created FOR him as a gift? It obviously had some purpose. Good topic Doc. I wish I had more of a background in the Christus Victor model, but you can only read so much Can ya'll name some good books that can catch me up?

Thanks,

Kyle Essary

quote:

---

ps. To might-be-Don, putting yourself in competition with the Creator and Saviour for ones affections is never a good idea. First, you should loose. And second, if you ever win, then you've REALLY lost.

---

quote:

---

This is the part of Calvinism I have always admired. The theme of loving and trusting God for God's own sake, not because of any benefit we (at least immediately) derive from it. Edwards talks about developing a taste for "the beauty of the whole" that reflects God's glory, and preferring this beauty over any beauty of the parts of the whole.

The mistake I think Edwards and other Calvinists make is in thinking that one has to accept that EVERY FEATURE of the whole is part of its beauty.

---

Ahhhhhhhhh. Now THIS is music to my ears. Do you realize that out of ALL of the open view stuff that I've read, I've NEVER seen anything like this being said or emphasized? I mean that. Never. I guarantee you that this is a MAJOR reason that many Calvinists and people who are "theistic bootlickers" like me won't give OVT the time of day. Much of OVT writings often make God the begging love-slave of Creation, whose MAIN reason for worshipping IS the "benefit that we derive from it" It's like "We worship God BECAUSE He's good" (meaning "good TO US") and nothing else. This leaves a VERY bad taste in the mouth of people like me. And I think there are more than a few people like me out there.

However, once you say what you are saying. Then what that you seem to be doing is saying:

Hey, Calvinism is NOT ALL BAD. It has some good intuitions. Where Calvinism may be deficient is in thinking that God is ultimately behind EVERY good and EVERY evil in a "prescripted" way


This makes OVT a matter of DEGREE and not KIND in separation from Calvinism. That goes a long way. But most OVT writings seem to have NOTHING but disdain and reactionary tones for Calvinism...and then wonder mysteriously why there's no real dialogue.

[Digression and Example: When I was at the ETS Conference in Colorado Springs, I saw Clark Pinnock speak. Time and again, he would make slightly derogatory (or at best tongue-in-cheeK) remarks about Calvinism. After his speech, at Q&A time, a Calvinist called him on the carpet for this...essentially saying "It's kind of hard to have a good dialogue on this when Calvinism always seems to be painted in its worst possible light." Pinnock gave a type of apology. But THIS is what I'm talking about! (No disrepsect to Pinnock. He's super tight!)]


*******************************************


Doc

quote:

---

But just this "free play" allows for the possibility of there being aspects of the whole that are NOT beautiful. Of course, like an ingenious artist, God can weave ugly aspects of the whole into the beauty of the whole if the clay cooperates with him (Jer. 18). But this is not to say that he himself designs the ugliness, or that the ugliness is itself a hidden beauty.

When the sculpture of world history is complete, all that is consistent with God's "gift" contributes to his "glory," and all that is not is lopped off and thrown away.

---

Ok. Some issues reemerge here. What this seems to say is that God NEVER 1)designs ANY ugliness into his creation in predetermined fashion and 2) that something WE CONSIDER ugliness cannot in and of itself be considered "beautiful" to God. Moreover, you are saying that whatever doesn't contribute to God's glorification is "lopped off" at the end.

With #1, I think that you are trying to preserve the cash value of the theodicy idea, that is attempting to exonerate God for particular evils. And understandably so. If it is admitted that God CAN design some type of "ugliness" as PREDESTINED in his plan, we would not know whether of not WHICH PARTICULAR EVENT was the product of this action. What this would seem to compromise is the "God always being for us" idea...and the idea that "evil" PRIMARILY emerges from creation. But, Doc, for this to work out, we're gonna have to do some compromising.
Let me use this example: THE CRUCIFIXION. As I recall, we had SOME time with saying how the crucifixion of Jesus Christ could have been a predestined event. Some people wanted to say that merely the DEATH was predestined and not the method. But I personally found that idea problematic. But, EVEN IF that were the case, that doesn't change the fact that PAINFUL DEATH was the case here...and it was PREDESTINED. Why? Because it's been consistently admitted here that God's knowledge of humans falling was NOT merely an "improbable possibility" like Sanders said...but an INEVITABILITY that God knew about. Thus, OVTers are willing to say that the Cross was God's decisive action about what to do BEFORE creation. Some will want to say that because it was for a "greater good" that the "ugliness" is diminished in light of it. But that's mot really true. THE CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF CHRIST BY THE HANDS OF OTHER HUMANS IS UGLY...and it was predestined by God. It was an ugly, dirty, nasty, sinful act...that God had planned. Let's just say for a moment that Jesus really thought of himself as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. What would he have thought?

Isaiah 53:1-12
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


See what I mean? Now here's the kicker. Remember what Semeia and Icon have been saying over and over again, ad nauseum. Given our limited perspective, how could we EVER really know what particular evil WASN'T used as part of the "mosaic" that God appreciates? We couldn't know BECAUSE we are limited. We'd have to admit a sizable ignorance here. The only reason why we esteem the Crucifying of an innocent man for the sins of others is because God has TOLD US it was his plan. If we'd have heard that this happened and was not SPECIFICALLY SANCTIONED by God, we would have probably said that it was "gratuitous evil" Well, the same thought applies. We just wouldn't KNOW if the Zosia, Sept. 11th, and Genie episodes are FULLY gratuitous evil...unless God flat out told us so. To say that we DO know so without question is HIGHLY presumptuous, if not all out arrogant. I'm using the Crucifixion as an example to make this point...

If we agree that the DEATH OF CHRIST BY WAY OF SINFUL HUMANS was preordained by God from the jump, then it seems that this is a tacit argument AGAINST the ideas that 1)God doesn't DESIGN some type of evil (PARTICULAR evil, at that) into his mosaic and 2) that something we would consider ugly in and of itself CANNOT be seen as beautiful to God.


As for the lopping off stuff, I would agree that at the end all of the non-glorifying stuff is TRIUMPHED over and put away...but I would state that at least SOME of the non-glorifying stuff had PURPOSE...a contrast by which God was eventually glorified in the triumph. Isn't that JUST what Paul talks about with the "unbelief" of human beings?

Romans 9:22-24
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--
even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?


Check it out, Doc. I realize that saying the above would kind of compromise some of your present ideas...HOWEVER, consider this. Look how MYSTERIOUS the whole thing ends up being! As I've said before, there's NO REAL WAY of knowing JUST WHAT "evil" is a greater good evil and what's not. We essentially CAN'T KNOW that. What we can know, as OVTers, is that it is the case the NOT ALL evil is ordained by God. And isn't that ESSENTIALLY what you want to say anyway? You (like I) would focus on FIGHTING evil in the power of the Spirit rather than spending all of our energies trying to determine it's ultimate source. You (like I) would definitely say that Satan is the enemy of God and the head of this fallen age and should be fought against WITHOUT resignation. Isn't that what it's all about?

I REALLY THINK that if you were to let up a LITTLE MORE on the attempts to justify God here, that you'd have more of an audience with Calvinists and people who lean towards Calvinism. Remember that, at base, Calvinism pretty much posits one big "greater good" argument wherein all that happens is the BEST THING because God determined it this way, even mysteriously so. By having OVT suppositions, you are not calling it the best possible world, but you ARE in essence using a big "greater good" argument if you really think about it. With the suggestions, I've made here there would be only TWO primary differences as I see it between Calvinism and OVT


1) EXHAUSTIVE Determinism would not be true. (Worked out, this would counteract a lot of the TULIP idea)

2) Not ALL evil could be attributed to "God's mysterious ways"


*******************************************


With Don's question, Doc said:

quote:

---

Putting yourself in competition with the Creator and Saviour for ones affections is never a good idea. First, you should loose. And second, if you ever win, then you've REALLY lost.

---

Looking back, Don's question and this answer are EXACTLY my problems with omnibenevolence as it had been described before. OF COURSE, God esteems GODSELF (to insert the TRINITARIAN idea) higher than any person in Creation, including you, me, and everyone. But omnibenevolence as it was defined before seemed to DENY this. Bad joss! With this new understanding, this problem seems to be pretty solved.

*********************************


Pia said:

quote:

---

It seems like we have been transformed from tiles in a mosaic to brush strokes in an impressionistic painting—same principle, only less precise.

---

YES, YES, YES! Do you see how this only makes OVT different from Calvinism in DEGREE, not KIND???



What cha think?

Blessings,


PS: The only issue that I could see would be for people to say (for any particular evil event):

"THIS piece of evil is too evil...even to consider God preordaining or sanctioning in some way. It's just a nightmare. What good can come from this?"

Though this is an honest question, it is a question that, as Doc would say, IGNORES all of the potential factors involved with the particular piece of evil. Cause what the person is saying is not "There is NO WAY anything glorify to God can be in or come from this", but "FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND WHAT I SEE OF REALITY, there is NO WAY anything glorify to God can be in or come from this." The second statement is by far the most truthful...and once we admit that we hit "mysteryville" But does that hinder us? NOPE. Not if we do the good we know to do and FOLLOW THE SPIRIT in each situation!

In short, I would suggest that any person who claims that a given particular evil CANNOT be seen as ultimately glorifying to God and/or a greater good is SEVERELY lacking in epistemological humility (or humility before God in general) And needs to check themselves. Just my opinion.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

About whether God loves Jesus more than you, I think you answered it. You are IN Jesus (despite your Calvinism) so the love is one and the same.

---

This is nice, but I think it dodges the INTENT of the question, somewhat. When I think of love, I keep thinking of 1 Cor 13 and other works. Love is essentially when one ESTEEMS ANOTHER HIGHER THAN ONESELF. Not in a self-deprecating way, but in a healthy way that presupposes appropriate self-love. Now, Doc and I agree that God sees Godself's influences on Creation as being the MOST IMPORTANT. To me, this means NOT fully esteeming the other higher than oneself. This is esteeming the other WITHIN the rubric of one's own influence and decision.

What I'm hearing Doc say (and Semeia and Icon have also said this) is that because we are in Christ, Christ esteeming himself IS esteeming us. But I think we see that this seems to be more of a statement of unification with God rather than how the "esteeming" thing works out.

Wouldn't you say, Doc, that God's self-glorifying influences are the MOST INFLUENTIAL of the 'creational variables'? If so, don't you see how someone can see that as God esteeming Godself MORE THAN his Creation, in some way?

quote:

---

We have no way of knowing (because the criterion is not us and has not been revealed to us) what it means to say that God esteems Godself more than us. I don't think it a very helpful question. There is a certain distinction that must be made between creation and Creator here. God esteems Godself as Absolute to Absolute. God esteems creation as relative to Absolute, BUT THEN God shows up and begins esteeming redeemed creation AS IN CHRIST, which makes them in some since partakers of and identifiable WITH Absolute. This is really HUGE, and it retains the FOR YOU emphasis of the Gospel in both directions. If good is always universal, than it is not particularly "for" anyone. Not even God. NO. The FOR YOU must be retained. Both with regard to Christ's relation to God and ours as in Christ.

---

I thought that I had given a sufficient idea. God esteeming Godself more than us is basically EXACTLY what you've said. God understanding Himself to be the ABSOLUTE to which we are RELATIVE to that ABSOLUTE. Surely, you are saying that this is the PRIMARY venue of understanding. That the Absolute creates a way for the Relative to be indentified with itself is wonderful, but NOT the primary venue. Simply put, the Absolute can "absolutize" (Hehe) the Relative BECAUSE it is Absolute. And that Absolute does so ON ITS OWN TERMS because it is the Absolute. Get me?

See, this is what I'm hearing when we try to say that God esteems Creation higher than Himself:

The Absolute (God) has completely RELINQUISHED his Absoluteness and has made the Relative the NEW Absolute.

Humanism to the Nth power. That's not what's happened, as you note. The Absolute has made a way for the Relative to PARTAKE IN and IDENTIFY WITH the Absolute. But has NOT relinguished it's Absoluteness!

With respect to the God being "FOR" someone. What I'm saying is that the "good" for us is WITHIN the good for God. In other words, I'm not saying that good has no particularity. And I'm not saying that the good for us and the good for God don't coincide in a lot of ways. I AM saying that God's ideas are always, at base, the MOST DETERMINATIVE about reality (because He is the Absolute) and any good "for us" has to be seen as being WITHIN that determinative activity.

Is this being more clear?



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

Just pondering... Does God love Jesus more than he loves me?

peace and love, don

---

quote:

---

First, I’m working hard to follow and understand the finer points of this discussion. I’m fine with "Creation as gift from Father to Son" and that the ultimate motivation behind this was God’s own glory. No problem. Mephi’s pushing a bit further for adjusting the warfare theodicy a bit to account for this

---

Indeed, Tom. I think this "glory idea" would entail a significant reconcideration of some things. Could you specify some of the "finer points" that are giving you trouble?




Tom

quote:

---

Secondly, I’m totally with Mephi on the need for openness theologians to give fuller attention to the glory of God as God acting for the good with respect to himself and his own plan (i.e., “Creation as gift from Father to Son”). Had The Openness of God (Pinnock, Rice, Sanders, et. al.) given a chapter to this it would really have helped. This needs to be worked out, written up, and presented publicly.

---

Remember how you said that you like it when we agree? I feel the SAME way, man!





Tom

quote:

---

Thirdly, and more importantly, I’m still clinging to the belief that the cross was not a predetermined “certainty” from eternity. I would agree that it was God’s predetermined response to the possibility of human sin. This would involve God’s experiencing all the same emotional and volitional commitments as would be the case had he predestined the cross as Mephi and others are arguing. Infinite intelligence applies here. God knew all the possibilities that might follow from his choice to create creatures possessing free will, and the choice to go ahead with this kind of world necessarily involved his counting the cost, as it were, i.e., his committing “to do whatever it took.” Since some possibilities involve inevitabilities if those possibilities become facts, God would know this and would have predetermined his response to sin. So, personally I don’t think we need the cross to be eternally 'inevitable' in the sense Mephi (and others) are arguing in order to make sense of God’s glory as the primary and ultimate factor God takes into consideration in responding to evil in our world. Infinite intelligence covers it. (We’ve been here before, so don’t bother responding to this. I don’t want to derail the discussion. I like where it’s going and want to follow it. Just wanted to throw this in for my and Sanders’ sake!)

---

Though I HIGHLY disagree with Sanders' idea of the "improbable possibility" of humans falling, it doesn't really matter. The bolded section of your statement above is all I need. Like you said, the death of Christ for human beings would have been the FOREORDAINED means for remedying the situation IF it arose. Now, what does this mean? It STILL means that 1)God CAN design some type of evil (PARTICULAR evil, at that) into his mosaic and 2) that something we would consider ugly in and of itself CAN be seen as beautiful to God. It doesn't get away from what I'm saying at all. And that's what I LOVE about it! In your view, Tom, this evil act was ALWAYS a part of his "contingency plan", but it was THERE nonetheless as a PRE-DECIDED means of operation that would flow into God's interaction with the world if certain things obtained. So how does this change anything? It doesn't.


There may be some people wondering what REAL difference this would make. Here's something.

An illustration of Possible Implication:

Let's get practical here. I want to show what difference this would make. Let's say we have a situation of tragedy. What the warfare worldview implies currently is that, for any situation of tragedy, it FUNDAMENTALLY emerged from Creation and not from God in any way. That aspects of gross evil do NOT bring glory to God in any type of way, either as intended means or ends. That aspects of gross evil our NECESSARILY outside of the will of God and only creation (either Satan, or free willed beings) are the ultimate reason for it.

This would HAVE to change if we accept the complete logical ramifications of the "glorification" idea. As I've hopefully shown, when this idea is factored in, we could NEVER be sure whether or not any given evil was a gratuitous evil or "greater good" evil...UNLESS GOD HIMSELF, BY HIS SPIRIT, TOLD US. That's just the facts of the matter. We can attribute all evil to Satan and free willed beings for the sake of convenience or to supposedly be "more like Jesus" in our interpretation of evil. But the facts don't change. Given our limited sphere AND the knowledge that God can use MANY things to glorify himself, we'd never really know what exactly was going on.

Therefore, advice that suggests that...

--God had nothing to do with the particular evil
--the particular evil was DEFINITELY outside or against the will of God
--the particular evil can ONLY be traced by to free willed beings


would be erroneous in a big way. It would be assuming much more knowledge than we have. We could not DENY the fact that it could be possible that God's glorification (which is mysterious) would negate all those things above. (Remember my critique post of all the people who seemed to assert WITHOUT DOUBT that God had nothing to do with Sept. 11th??) Thus this has to be reframed to incorporate for the new idea.


Instead of trying so hard to assert to talk about the ultimate source, admit the fundamental mystery and go from there

"Why'd this happen to me? Why would God allow this?"

"I DON'T KNOW. Honestly, I don't"

"What DO you know then?"

"I know that the Spirit of God KNOWS whats going on. He has the answers. I know that God is available to comfort the wounded heart. He feels you pain and is there for you to vent or whatever. I know that God has abudant grace to help you, either to triumph or endure your situation. I know that God showed his everlasting love to us in Jesus. Finally, I know that I am here in your life RIGHT NOW to do all I can to help you and demonstrate God's love and mercy."


This is not exactly how I'd say this in a real situation, but hopefully you get the idea. There would not be ANY attempts to get God off the hook as it were for any particular evil situation...because we would completely ADMIT to our ignorance...but focus on the solutions and sure knowledge that we DO have. Now, I hear the coming question...

"Well, if this is the case, and things we consider gross evil somehow CAN be used for God's glorification, HOW can we ever really tell the works of Satan from God in any real way in any given situation of evil?"

THIS is the biggie. People want a sure fire means of DISCERNMENT when it comes to "good" and "evil", or "loving" and "unloving"...a way of separating acts of God from acts of Satan or evil beings. And Semeia and Icon have been showing us for some time now that this is problematic. To me, the answer is almost LAUGHINGLY simple: "The SPIRIT, man, the SPIRIT." The Spirit of the Living God. Think about this. People want to say that Jesus always interpreted evil things like sickness in terms of the works of the Devil...thus we should too. Is it possible that this was because Jesus was SO IN TUNE with the Spirit that he could discern these things with no problem? How did Paul know about the soothsaying chick? How did Peter know about Ananias and Sapphira? How did Paul find out the deeper REASON for his "thorn in the flesh"? Take ONE guess. You got it. The SPIRIT. Use the Spirit and Word concept. We have AMPLE Scripture that affirms that God wants us to help the helpless, care for the poor and downhearted, share love, and fight evil. With this, combined with the Spirit, WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED? Some type of facile psychological certainty that makes us feel better?? I wouldn't think so. Instead of doing something like:

Good = God
Bad = Devil and Humans

we should acknowledge the FULL ambiguity of what goes on and just try as hard as we can to focus on the PRESENCE and leading power of God's Spirit along with the example and teachings of the Word of God, Jesus Christ. We have to be able to live with the ambiguity in the GREAT HOPE that in giving full attention to the Spirit and His work, we will get the wisdom and leading from God that we need. Sure, we may get some things wrong and drop the ball. But I don't see where God said that we had to SUCCEED in everything we try. The attempt is the thing. And in trying our best to glorify the Father in the Spirit by following the Word of God, I think we are doing what we are supposed to be doing in the first place...without all the certainty. Straight trinitarian, baby.


Nuff said.

This is one of the things that would change if we consistently apply our ideas. There are OTHER things that would change too, like the way we think about providence, our surety about "good and evil", all that.

What you think?



PS: As a side note, I don't think that exegesis is that separable from philosophical/theological concerns ultimately. They are QUITE intertwined.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

Let's push this one step further in the process, let's say that you DO some discernment, with what sort of confidence would you speak about how you are discerning God in this situation? Let' get specific: Let's use the example of the child who was left rotting in their diapers that you told us about. What do you say to the person who found this child and who is now totally distraught and coming to you for counsel. Let's also say that you pray about it and you really aren't sure what to make of what you are getting at the time. Who knows why, spiritual warfare stuff or just major distractions, whatever. How would you proceed?

Could you say, "Hey, what I know for sure is that God is against this sort of radical neglect. God knows what it is to love and care for children and THIS is not it." Would it be dishonest to say that? We could certainly draw on proverbs and parables that reveal the good parenting aspect of God. Right? But of course, this could have been the necessary effect of an action that was glorifying to God right? Could this even have been the content of what glorifies God? Here is a situation where saying "I don't know" may seem to implicate us, our faith, God, or a combination of these.

---

Some things. First of all, in my asking the Spirit, my prayers would not be for finding an answer to the WHY question per se. My questions would be in the line of "Ok, God. Show me HOW I can fit into whatever it is that you are already doing. Give me the wisdom to say what you would have me to say."

Next, if, for whatever reason, I'm getting nothing but a big blank, I still can rely on Scriptural ideas to show that, regardless to what, God in Christ definitely instructs us that radical neglect of that magnitude is not what God wants us to do. (I would rely on Scripture ANYWAY, but I'm just saying that I will always have a base from whence to work.) The neglectful action is against the ideas of loving God and our fellow human beings. It's against the idea of Christ's reverence for children. There's a whole bunch of stuff I could use here. In short, I could say that the neglect is NOT what God promotes and that God is there for the healing process. Notice how this doesn't necessarily deal with the ULTIMATE things going on. I don't need to make some claim about WHAT God is doing in this thing when I honestly don't know. Sure, I could do this to attempt to make someone feel better, but I personally would feel that I was greatly overstepping my boundaries. As I indicated in the post above yours, I think that there are plenty of things that we can be reasonably sure of that provide the comfort and strength that we need to carry on...without being presumptuous.


_______________________________________

quote:

---

Is affirming that God is good and that this situation is not "of God" in some sense a matter of logical deduction OR an act of faith?

If discernment is involved and one clearly gets the message that God is against something, then of course, we can and should pronounce this as true, right?

Say discernment is involved and God is silent, we ALL know this happens, then can affirming that God is good and this situation is NOT of God STILL be a matter of faith?

Which takes greater faith?

Abraham had great faith because he was willing to give up his son, whom he loved, and who fulfilled the promise. But Abraham had even greater faith because in the very giving up, he fully expected to recieve it all back in full. Somehow. (Heb. 11 esp. 17-19)

Let's talk about faith.

---

Now, this is a good way to reframe the idea. So, let's talk about faith. One of my favorite biblical depictions of faith in God lies in this Scripture...

Daniel 3:16-18
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."

One dimension of faith is the KNOWLEDGE that "God is able!" There is NO DOUBT in the minds of these young men that God can get them out of their mess. God is able. But they acknowledge that God, for whatever reason, may not do so. But what do they say in light of that knowledge? "We STILL ain't gonna punk out before your stupid idol! We will not negate our allegience to our God." Basically, they assert that CIRCUMSTANCES won't move them from their faith in God's place and power.

This idea is a very "NEVERTHELESS" type of faith, where circumstances and God's supposed action or INACTION don't negate my faith in his ability.

There's also a dimension of faith where people look at God's PAST DEEDS and infer that God loves them and is able to redeem ANY dark situation. The expectancy of aid.

Habbakkuk 3
LORD, I have heard of your fame; I stand in awe of your deeds, O LORD. Renew them in our day, in our time make them known; in wrath remember mercy. God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth. His splendor was like the sunrise; rays flashed from his hand, where his power was hidden. Plague went before him; pestilence followed his steps. He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed. His ways are eternal.

I saw the tents of Cushan in distress, the dwellings of Midian in anguish. Were you angry with the rivers, O LORD? Was your wrath against the streams? Did you rage against the sea when you rode with your horses and your victorious chariots? You uncovered your bow, you called for many arrows. Selah You split the earth with rivers; the mountains saw you and writhed. Torrents of water swept by; the deep roared and lifted its waves on high. Sun and moon stood still in the heavens at the glint of your flying arrows, at the lightning of your flashing spear. In wrath you strode through the earth and in anger you threshed the nations.

You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one. You crushed the leader of the land of wickedness, you stripped him from head to foot. Selah With his own spear you pierced his head when his warriors stormed out to scatter us, gloating as though about to devour the wretched who were in hiding. You trampled the sea with your horses, churning the great waters. I heard and my heart pounded, my lips quivered at the sound; decay crept into my bones, and my legs trembled. Yet I will wait patiently for the day of calamity to come on the nation invading us.

Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign LORD is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights.


In my opinion, how these two dimensions of faith come together are to form some VERY mature faith. On one hand, you have a person for whom circumstances don't matter. No matter WHAT happens, they decide to give all their allegience to God. Period. On the other hand, you have a person who salves their disappointment with God (when it occurs) with the knowledge of God's past actions. They feel that they have enough reason to trust that God knows what he's doing, that God loves them, and that God is ABLE to save and redeem all situations. In this there is BALANCED expectancy, not presumption of God's action.


Now, in the midst of the faith that I'm describing above, what is the need for trying to "have faith" that God is NOT in a specific episode of evil? Basically what you end up saying is the following:

"I don't know ultimately what's going on...but I have the FAITH in God's goodness that he had nothing to do with this gross evil. And I'm going to hold to that."

This "faith" seems misplaced, Are we saying that UNLESS we can believe that God had nothing to do with a specific evil ultimately that we can find no solace or comfort with God? Somehow that seems wrong to me. To me, saying that God is good and that God is NOT in a given situation wouldn't be an act of faith...but a move for existential comfort. Why do we even need to presume that any given situation is NOT of God, ultimately? It would seem the only real reason is to assert psychological certainty that God is TRULY "on my side" in the ultimate sense, with respect to the PARTICULAR evil thing in question.

Now, it's a DIFFERENT story if you want to say this:

"I have faith that, ALL "EVIDENCE" TO THE CONTRARY, God is ALL OVER this situation...and working in it towards a wise end."

That type of faith statement would be quite biblical. But please notice how this is distinct from the other idea. This is a faith statement THAT God is working...NOT about what exactly he is doing.


Good questions, Modes. Let's keep it going, y'all.



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.