 |
| 
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/24/2003 8:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | Icon: I was reading the correspondence you had with the Huguenot, in the cross thread, and unfortuanlty I have been gone all summer and so I could not post a reply. Instead of writing a post about your discussion over a week ago, I decided to start a new thread.
I am writing in regards to the whole issue of Zosia. Upon reading Boyd's "God at War" this whole analogy, or life lesson (wahtever), really bothered me. I grew up in the traditional "God loves everyone" household. Upon the studying and research I have done recently though, I do not know if God has chosen to love everyone the same. Before I truly get started, I want to clear one thing up. Even if God were to damn everyone to hell, and He even told us in His Word, and if He were to punish us with boils, deaths, illnesses, and whatever kind of earthly torture you could think of; even for those who are "followers" of Him, wouldn't He still be completley loving in doing so? What I mean by that, is the very character of God is love. Therefore anything that He would declare or cause to come into being, would, in and of itself, have to be just, loving, merciful, and the like. Even if that included sending the entire world to the pits of hell regardless of whether or not they followed Him. To deny this, and say, "No God is required to love everyone, in an earthly fallible, finite, human mind thinking way, in which we don't condemn people, in which we don't hate people"; wouldn't that make God subject to some law above Himself, thus denying His very omnimax being? So if you are with me so far, in short, even if God were to condemn us to hell, He would still be perfectly loving in doing so.
Now back to Zosia, the major problem that I have with Boyd's argument here is that he is saying, "How could a loving God cause suffering on an innocent girl?" But just because God deals with other children of the same age as Zosia, and some were living in America and other "non-persecuted" places, does this mean that God has been any "less-loving" to Zosia? I don't think so. In the first chapter of Malachi we are told how God has loved Israel, in comparision to how He hasn't shown Edom the same type of love. Are we to assume that God's character towards Edom didn't include His character of love? By all means no. Ephesians 1 tells us that "in love" God predestined us. In the same way, are we to complain about Romans 9 when God says that the children yet being unborn nor having done good or evil "that the purpose of God's election might stand, it was said the older shall serve the younger. For as it is written 'Jacob I have loved' and 'Esau I have hated.'" Are we to assume that God failed to love Esau despite the fact that He said He hated Esau. Along with that Psalm 5 and 11 speaks about God "hating all workers of iniquity" are we to assume that these same workers of iniquity have been removed from God's general love? BY ALL MEANS NO! But what do we end up with?
I think we end up with another paradox of God. The fact that in some cases God can hate with a perfect hatred, and yet this can still be done in love. We as fallible humans cannot understand that and we cannot do it ourselves as God is the only one who truly knows the hearts and searchs the minds, Jer 17.
Now relating this back to Zosia, and along with Romans 9, what if God wanting to show His objects of mercy His greater love for them, determined that Zosia was to be tortured. To make His followers stand in awe of His greatness towards them? What if Zosia was raised up for the purpose of being a vessel of destruction? And do we have rights to complain once more? As Romans 9 says, NO!
Now I know that one think Boyd and perhaps other thinkers alike Him would say is that Zosia was a young girl. She hadn't done anything, she was innocent in this. But are we truly innocent. This we could perhaps completly see different sides of, but the way that I have come to believe is that we all inherit some sort of sin, commonly known as original sin. As the Psalmnist says in Ps 53? he was born into iniquity. And Gen 6:5 all the inclinations of man's heart was evil, always. Jer 17:9 the heart is above all wicked and decietful, Rom 3:10,11,23, no one understands, or seeks, because we have ALL sinned. These verses all apply to Zosia. She was born into sin. Now all would agree that God looks at the heart and not at the flesh. When we humans look at the flesh of a young child, our corruptible fallen ways say, "Oh she's innocent, isn't she adorable, blah, blah, blah." But is it so with God? Or do we maintain that God looks at the heart? And if He does, does He see our hearts as black or white, or as black, white, and grey. Well we are told in Matthew that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and vise versa, it appears as though there are only two options. Does this fall in line with children? Yes, because from our births we are born into sin, with the stain of death on us. It's only when Christ redeems us that He makes us whole. As Isaiah stood before God and couldn't bear to stand in His sight because of His sin, so no one, including children couldn't bear to do it. Because God looks at the heart, not at the cute, corruptible, sinfallen, fallible, messed up, flesh.
So in hoping to tie all of this together, could a loving God torture people at will?- Yes, Rom. 9:21, 22, Mal. 1. Do we have grounds to complain?- No, Rom 9:17, Ps 19:9,10. Could God have "caused" everything to happen to Zosia and still been loving?- Yes. Can we charge God with wrong doing in the case of Zosia, based on how He has loved others and declared it unfair and unloving?- No! God is Sovereign, God is Good, God is Perfect, God is LOVE, but who says that that is the same love that we humans percieve as love. The minute we call into question any of God's judgments and say He was loving, we are critquing the God of this universe, and saying that He made a mistake. The God i serve doesn't make mistakes and i don't think He will take lightly to anyone who "darkens counsel without knowledge."
One last point, Boyd closes the book by saying that He can't imagine that God wouldn't make it up to Zosia in heaven. Since when did God ever say, "Hey if you have a crappy life here on earth, don't worry, I'll give you something in Heaven that is good." When has God ever owed us anything? The very fact that we aren't being persecuted like the Jews and even Zosia, should give us even more grounds for worshiping the God of this universe for His great mercy. Boyd seems to come across as though we worship God, only if He does good things for us, wich seems to be a clear contradiction to Psalm 95. My biggest question to you, is if God is all loving and all things are possible for God, than how in the world would you ever call into question or accuse God with wrong if He did happen to cause the torture of Zosia?
Did this make sense? If you need clarification, I would be much obliged to discussing my questions in further detail. This is just for thought if nothing else.
Borg
Job 1:20,21
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/25/2003 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg, what I hear you saying is that since we know that God is love then by definition everything He does is loving. Thus, IF God tortures little children then He is doing it out of love. IF God was the one who tortured Zosia THEN Zosia being tortured was an expression of God’s love.
I absolutely agree with you that by definition whatever God does is loving since God is love. That God does not operate according to some abstract definition or “law” of love but rather that God Himself in His action defines what love is.
But this brings up the question, does God torture little children to express His love or is it NOT God who is doing this?
One way to determine the answer to this question is to first determine what God’s love looks like. What does God mean by “love” when He says that He is love? What sorts of actions do we see God doing to express His love?
I think we can find the answer to this by looking at the ultimate expression of God’s love which is Jesus Christ dying on the cross for us. “Man hath no greater love than to lay down his life for his brother.” It seems to me that when God Himself actually came down to earth we got a pretty clear picture of how God defines love. We see that picture through Jesus’ actions. Jesus heals the sick. Jesus forgives sinners who haven’t even confessed or repented. Jesus reaches out to the outcast of society. Jesus weeps when Lazarus dies. Jesus allows Himself to be unjustly accused, condemned and crucified when He could have stopped it with a single thought. He even asks His father to forgive the very people who are crucifying Him.
We also see God’s definition of love by reading what Jesus had to say about love. Jesus gave a pretty powerful definition of love when He told the story of the Good Samaritan. It is pretty clear that to love someone means to help them out even at a cost to yourself – or rather – especially at a cost to yourself. Jesus gave us clear logic in this story about what love is. If we think that God is behind beating up someone, stealing all their possessions and leaving them on the road to die then this story ought to clear up that misconception. Moreover, if we find someone beaten up on the side of the road we can be sure that God is not behind it but that God wants us to help that person out.
To me it is clear from what Jesus said and did that this love that God has for us rules out Him torturing young children. Therefore I conclude that it is NOT God torturing Zosia but some nazi guard who is acting against God’s will.
borg
Could God have "caused" everything to happen to Zosia and still been loving?- Yes. Can we charge God with wrong doing in the case of Zosia, based on how He has loved others and declared it unfair and unloving?- No! God is Sovereign, God is Good, God is Perfect, God is LOVE, but who says that that is the same love that we humans percieve as love. The minute we call into question any of God's judgments and say He was loving, we are critquing the God of this universe, and saying that He made a mistake. The God i serve doesn't make mistakes and i don't think He will take lightly to anyone who "darkens counsel without knowledge."
Iconoclast
Who is charging God with wrongdoing in the case of Zosia? Not I. It was not God who caused it but the nazi guard.
But think for a moment about what you are claiming here. What if the torture of Zosia really was NOT caused by God but by a nazi guard going against God’s will? If this is true but you continue to believe that God caused it to happen and therefore believe that it WAS a loving thing to do and therefore attribute it to God how do you think God would feel about that? Wouldn’t He feel like you were impuning His Character? How would you respond to God when He said that He has shown us clearly what love is when He sent His son to die for us and when He healed the sick and when He told us the story of the Good Samaritan? How would you respond to God when He brings up this scripture:
Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
And says, “not even ye, who are evil, would claim that torturing your children is a loving thing to do, so how can ye claim that I would even countenance such an act?”
I am sticking with the nazi guard being the culprit on the torture of Zosia and NOT God. God is love. He doesn’t torture little children.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/25/2003 7:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Iconoclast:
quote:
I am sticking with the nazi guard being the culprit on the torture of Zosia and NOT God. God is love. He doesn’t torture little children.
Yeah...and God doesn't MAKE anyone deaf or mute, either...riiiight?
Ex. 4:10-12
But Moses said to the LORD, “O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” Then the LORD said to him, “Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes (Heb. from shin yod mem. To put or set) them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you are to speak.”
This had to have been humans putting words in the mouth of God...right?
So...are you suggesting that God DOES torture little girls?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 9:00 PM (GMT -6) | | I’m saying that Scripture says that God, by SHEER FIAT, makes people deaf, mute, and blind. For LIFE. Perhaps from BIRTH (ala the John verse). What’s allowing a little girl to be tortured to death for a brief amount of time compared to THAT?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/26/2003 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon, first lets get this straight. In a compatablist sort of way, i am not saying that God tortures little kids. though i believe that perhaps God coul dhave ordained the torturing of the little girl, i would also stand by the fact that God was in way forcing the nazi's to do this to the girl. as arthur w. pink says, it's not like God is steering an unwilling horse in an unwilling direction. the nazi soldiers weren't saying to themsevles, "No God, please don't let us torture this little girl." God doesn't force people into evil, lest we say that evil preceeds from His hand, and God doesn't force anyone to love Him either, thus doing away with the "real love isn't forced" argument.
But i think that meph had something there. God causes people to be blind, deaf, mute, etc. He even hardened Pharoah's heart to Himself. And why? for the purpose that he was raised up to show God's greatness among the Israelites. Now you may very well be saying, well that's really dumb. But in truth, your stance on the subject of Zosia doesn't necesarily nix the problem of a loving God allowing this to happen. Why didn't God just intervene? You would say that it was more loving of Him to give man freewill to turn to Him or to reject Him than to intervene on people's freewill. I would respond, well that shows a heirarchy of love. So in my analogy, what if God's heirarchy of love was being shown to the objects of mercy, when God destroyed the object of wrath? But by no means does freewill make the problem of evil vanish. whatever view you take, the problem of evil will always haunt us, and i would assume take the stance that God is still in complete control.
To answer the problem of am i charging something to God that perhaps He didn't cause. I don't really worry about that. When you look at the story of Job you see that God let Satan tempt him, that it was Satan who was doing this stuff to him. And yet time and time again, Job charges it to God. For example in Job 1 towards the end when all his kids have just died, Job charges God with the act. "Naked I came from my mother's womb and naked I shall return. The LORD gaveth and the LORD taketh away, blessed be the name of the LORD. In all this Job did not charge God with sin nor did his lips sin." (BSV). kind of like the saying whether or not the wind kills people, God is still the God of the wind. Yet Job credits this to God and we are told that he doesn't sin in doing so.
I hold to the fact that God does everything and anything He wants. And "who are we to talk back to the potter. Doesn't the potter have the right to make out of some lumps of clay objects of beauty and others for destrcution," Rom 9 (BSV). The fact is, is that we cannot understand why Zosia was tortured, but we can rest in the unswerving promise that God is love, God is good, and that God "Works for the good of those who love Him" (Rom 8:28). But to say that God couldn't have cause Zosia to be tortured to me, is saying that God in some way owes us all a fair chance at life, and it's not until we realize that God owes us jack crap, at least to me, that we can truly see that all things from God, even to some extent pain and suffering, is a gift of God. God owes Zosia nothing, God doesn't have to answer to Zosia, we are but mere men, God is God. That's my largest problem, is that it seems as though if God did ordain the torture of Zosia, some hold to the fact that God owes her something. Does God tell us to do good and love others? Yes. Do i think He sometimes calls us to do something that He doesn't always do? Yes. Do I believe that the story of the good samaritain and the the torture of Zosia can still be applied to the same loving God? Yes. "For God causes the sun to rise on the just and the unjust, and the rain to fall on the good and the wicked," Matt 5:45? (BSV), that is the extent of the sinners love of God.
Let me know what you think.
Grace and Peace,
Borg
Job 42:1-6
Psalm 9:19,20
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon, call me naive, ignorant, dumb; whatever... but why in the world do people say that true love involves risk? this has never made sense to me, and if you could clear that up for me i would appreciate it.
furthermore, why couldn't it have been God's will? And I'm not too clear on how the person of Jesus makes this clear by healing people? I guess I would resort back to the Romans 9 answer; I know some aren't fond of it, but i would rather attest to the Holy Writ than try and logically explain anything away first; what if God wanting to show His power and make His mercy, grace, etc, known, caused these deaf, mute, blind, etc., to be that way so that Christ could heal them and revel His glory? I would stick with the idea that God is the potter, and He has the right to make out of one lump someone who is deaf and out of the other someone who can hear perfectly, and yet God is no less loving to one than the other. the heirarchy of love that i discussed in my last post, which i don't even know if it was worth reading.
i guess, i just fail to see how Christ's work on earth disproves the fact that it was God's will to make them that way.
grace and peace,
borg
ps 1:6
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/26/2003 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | borg
Icon, first lets get this straight. In a compatablist sort of way, i am not saying that God tortures little kids. though i believe that perhaps God could have ordained the torturing of the little girl
Iconoclast
What do you mean by “ordained” the torturing of the little girl?
I certainly agree that He allowed it. But I don’t think it was in any way His will that Zosia got tortured.
borg
God doesn't force people into evil, lest we say that evil preceeds from His hand, and God doesn't force anyone to love Him either, thus doing away with the "real love isn't forced" argument.
Iconoclast
I agree that evil does not proceed from God’s hand. I assume you mean by this that it is not His will.
borg
But i think that meph had something there. God causes people to be blind, deaf, mute, etc.
Iconoclast
If Meph thinks that verse means that God directly causes people to be blind, deaf, mute, etc. then I disagree with his interpretation. I don’t think God decided to have the man born blind who the disciples asked Jesus, “who sinned, this man or his parents?” The disciples presupposition was that God caused this man to be born blind for some reason. Jesus essentially debunked this thought.
In my view God certainly set up the kind of a system where people will be born blind, deaf, mute, etc. So, in that sense He “makes people to be born blind”. But this, in my opinion, can be easily understood as a direct consequence of love needing to be chosen. I make the argument on another thread that love must be chosen entails entropy. People being born blind is a direct consequence of entropy – information loss in the system.
borg
He even hardened Pharoah's heart to Himself. And why? for the purpose that he was raised up to show God's greatness among the Israelites.
Iconoclast
I agree that He did this. But this does not mean that what He did to Pharaoh was an unloving thing to do to Pharaoh. A standard principle in psychology is to “prescribe the symptom”. When someone is stuck in a negative direction it is important to help them realize the full negative consequences of that direction. Hardening Pharaoh’s heart caused Pharaoh and the entire Egyptian population to fully experience the negative consequences of the path they were going down. One can see Peter in this same light. God could have caused Peter to deny Him three times in order for Peter to fully experience the negative direction that he was going down.
I don’t for a second believe that Pharaoh was created just so he could be bad in order to allow God to have more glory. God would have had much more glory if Pharaoh had chosen to love God.
borg
But in truth, your stance on the subject of Zosia doesn't necesarily nix the problem of a loving God allowing this to happen. Why didn't God just intervene? You would say that it was more loving of Him to give man freewill to turn to Him or to reject Him than to intervene on people's freewill. I would respond, well that shows a heirarchy of love.
Iconoclast
I am not sure if it shows a hierarchy of love or is simply symptomatic of love needing to be chosen. To me it is clear that God is willing to allow us to suffer pain in order that ALL have a full chance to choose love. And this is my understanding of why God allowed Zosia to be tortured by the nazi guard. God allowed Zosia to be tortured because THAT was required in order to allow the NAZI GUARD the full chance to choose for or against love. Thus, if it shows a hierarchy of love, it shows that God loves the nazi guard so much (even as he is torturing God’s beloved Zosia) that He is willing to allow it on the chance that the nazi guard will experience for himself the terrible consequences of choosing against love and repent.
Now, lest we say that God is not being loving to Zosia in this, God sent His only begotten son and allowed Him to be tortured so that WE might experience the full consequences of choosing against love and repent. And since we know that God loves Himself we certainly can see that God loves Zosia as well in this.
borg
But by no means does freewill make the problem of evil vanish. whatever view you take, the problem of evil will always haunt us,
Iconoclast
I assume you mean that freewill does not explain fully why evil exists and that as humans we will always be perplexed why God allows evil.
I agree that just the concept of freewill doesn’t fully explain evil. But I disagree that this is something that is not understandable to us humans.
I think Doc’s “Satan and the Problem of Evil” is a pretty solid case for understanding why God allows evil with the exception of His view of “natural evil”. It seems to me that “natural evil” can be understood as a direct consequence of love needing to be chosen. Again, I make this case on another thread. The basic argument is that SOME epistemic distance from God is required for us to be able to choose love (otherwise every knee would bow) and that epistemic distance is equivalent to information loss in the system which is the definition of entropy. We can easily understand all natural processes that cause “evil” to be a result of entropy. Entropy is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that things go from order to disorder. It is the MOST unassailable law in physics.
borg
and i would assume take the stance that God is still in complete control.
Iconoclast
My experience is that God is in complete and exquisite control of everything.
borg
And yet time and time again, Job charges it to God. For example in Job 1 towards the end when all his kids have just died, Job charges God with the act. "Naked I came from my mother's womb and naked I shall return. The LORD gaveth and the LORD taketh away, blessed be the name of the LORD. In all this Job did not charge God with sin nor did his lips sin." (BSV).
Iconoclast
Job 40:6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
Job 40:7 "Gird up your loins like a man; I will question you, and you declare to me.
Job 40:8 Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?
I agree that Job did not sin in all this. But I also don’t think that Job was correct in His view that God was doing all this to him and that it was God’s will that these evil things happened to him. Yes, at a high level God gives and God takes away. The system God set up gives and takes away. It reminds me of when God caused the vine to grow up and shade Jonah’s head and then God caused the vine to whither and Jonah got mad at God for this. God then simply asked Jonah if it was right for him to be angry at this. No, it is not right to be angry at God for this. Why? Because this is NOT done out of being against the person or done out of negligence or lack of willingness to give on God’s part. It is done because it is NECESSARY for God to give us the TRUE gift called Life – Eternal Life – continuous intimate contact with God who loves us. (I got that from MephEternal)
borg
I hold to the fact that God does everything and anything He wants.
Iconoclast
As do I. I would further add that what God does is always loving and we can know what that love looks like because God has shown us in many ways. Thus, again, when a little girl is being tortured we know that God is not doing it. Allowing it, yes. Doing it, causing it, no.
borg
The fact is, is that we cannot understand why Zosia was tortured,
Iconoclast
Not in complete detail like God understands but I think we can understand in concept why God would allow this. He loves the nazi guard and is giving him the full chance to repent and choose love.
borg
But to say that God couldn't have cause Zosia to be tortured to me, is saying that God in some way owes us all a fair chance at life, and it's not until we realize that God owes us jack crap, at least to me, that we can truly see that all things from God, even to some extent pain and suffering, is a gift of God.
Iconoclast
I don’t think that God in some way OWES us all a fair chance. I think God CHOOSES to give us all a complete and full chance to choose love.
One of the consequences of the fall was for us humans to equate pain with evil. Pain is not evil. It is sometimes a gift from God. People born without the ability to feel pain or people who get leprosy (can’t feel pain) lead impoverished lives and tend to die young. Pain is not evil.
Evil is when we experience pain and engage the Satan (ha-satan = accuser, adversary) within ourselves and accuse God and each other of being evil and thus separate from each other. Evil is when we stop loving God and others. Evil is judgment (“krinos” in the sense of separation from each other).
In short I agree that pain and suffering is an aspect of the gift from God. When pain and suffering occurs because some free-will agent is torturing us then the pain is a symptom of the judgement / separation that the free-will agent is engaging in and thus is an indication of evil. Pain itself is just an indicator. It can indicate evil or it can indicate love. It depends on the context. A doctor setting a broken bone causes pain but this is a good indicator not an indicator of evil.
borg
God owes Zosia nothing, God doesn't have to answer to Zosia, we are but mere men, God is God.
Iconoclast
I agree. But we do know for a fact that God unconditionally loves Zosia and wants the very best for her. He doesn’t want her to be tortured. He doesn’t want people judging her or separating from her. He wants people to love her like He loves her.
borg
That's my largest problem, is that it seems as though if God did ordain the torture of Zosia, some hold to the fact that God owes her something.
Iconoclast
I disagree with God ever “ordaining” something evil. He certainly allows it. But assuming He did “ordain” or cause it to come about I agree that God doesn’t OWE her something in the sense that there is some law above God that would obligate Him. At the same time I believe that God chooses to owe her in the sense that God has chosen to be in a loving relationship with her and thus, out of his total love for her will “make it up to her” - will cause her “joy to be complete.” I think He will do that for all of us. Why? Because He has not only told us this but has demonstrated it through His actions – most powerfully – dying on the cross for us.
Enjoying the conversation.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/27/2003 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon, thanks for the response. It's left me thinking that perhaps our views of God's will differs, well it's obvious they do. I would stand under the idea that no one, no man, beast, angel, etc., can ever stand in the way of God's will: Dan. 4:35, 5:22-23, Job 42:2, Isa. 44:28. Nowhere in the Bible do I see people standing in the way of God's will or what He wants to accomplish. I cannot imagine that several mere men under the name of Nazi's in some way went against God's will and stood in opposition to Him. From what I gather, God does all that He pleases. This would also influence greatly my idea of the purpose of the cross. As John Owen said, the death of Christ was not merely a means unto salvation. The equation for salvation is not (cross)+(man's freewill; to reject or accept) it was however the end of salvation. This idea would thourghly go along with John 10:15, John 6:37, and John 6:44. Christ came to lay His life down for the sheep. No one can come unto Jesus unless the Father so draws Him. All that the Father brings to the Son WILL come to Him and He will by no means cast them out. To me, if you held the unlimited atonement, than this leads directly to universalism, which is not a Biblical view to carry.
But aside from the atonement, I cannot imagine how a loving God would say to these soldiers, "Have your freewill, torture this little girl in front of her mother, but I will in some way spin good out of it." That doesn't make sense to me. If I were that little girl I would rather be thinking, God has me going through this for a reason, but I can rest assure that the whole world is in the palm of His hands, that God is still under complete control of everything. What security is there in a God in which He has enabled mere men to stand in open opposition to Him and even distraut His will?
I would still say that God doesn't ordain evil by unwilling people. If He did so, than God would committ evil. Instead, man has free agency, which means we decide on everyday things, to an extent, while God still has complete control over it. In our sinfallen state we have the free agency to choose sin A or sin B. we can never choose good; because of the corruption of humankind, which included the will of man. in this view of the will of man, i in no way see God's love as being dimished. instead i see it all the more in the "objects of mercy" or as many would call the "elect". Because it's out of His love that He predestined us "in love" Eph 1. He is not being any less loving to the objects of wrath if He chooses not to reveal Himself in such a way to bring them unto salvation.
In the case of Zosia and her being tortured, why wouldn't that psychological term apply to this as well? Zosia was in a state of enemity against God. She was born into sin. Even if i did carry your view of freewill this idea could still easily be applied to this. whether it be for Zosia herself, for the guards torturing her, for her mother, for bystanders, this could still strike at someone's heart. which in my mind would still heavily sound as though God is behind it all in some manner.
but i feel as though this post is absent minded and back and forth. sorry i've been greatly distracted from this post. let me know what you think.
g n p
borg
john 10:10
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/27/2003 4:55 PM (GMT -6) | | borg
I would stand under the idea that no one, no man, beast, angel, etc., can ever stand in the way of God's will: Dan. 4:35, 5:22-23, Job 42:2, Isa. 44:28. Nowhere in the Bible do I see people standing in the way of God's will or what He wants to accomplish.
Iconoclast
I agree that no one can stand in the way of God’s will. But what if God’s will is that He wants people to love Him. Would you agree that by definition love must be chosen or else it is not love? Thus if God’s will is that all people love Him isn’t it by definition possible for some to choose not to love Him? Thus, in this sense isn’t it possible for some to thwart God’s will for themselves by choosing not to love Him?
Isn’t the greatest commandment that we love God? Isn’t this His will?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/27/2003 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Uh, oh…
quote:
borg
But i think that meph had something there. God causes people to be blind, deaf, mute, etc.
Iconoclast
If Meph thinks that verse means that God directly causes people to be blind, deaf, mute, etc. then I disagree with his interpretation. I don’t think God decided to have the man born blind who the disciples asked Jesus, “who sinned, this man or his parents?” The disciples presupposition was that God caused this man to be born blind for some reason. Jesus essentially debunked this thought.
In my view God certainly set up the kind of a system where people will be born blind, deaf, mute, etc. So, in that sense He “makes people to be born blind”. But this, in my opinion, can be easily understood as a direct consequence of love needing to be chosen. I make the argument on another thread that love must be chosen entails entropy. People being born blind is a direct consequence of entropy – information loss in the system.
Iconoclast, my man. What are you using for your exegesis, man? The text in both the Exodus and Jesus passages are QUITE clear. Moreover, do we even need to get into the other things said in the Old Testament that God has done? The Exodus text specifically says that God SETS deafness and muteness upon some people. No mistaking. You can’t do to much fudging with that, man. Sorry.
Check the Hebrew yourself.
Borg, don’t buy it. 
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/27/2003 5:59 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
The Exodus text specifically says that God SETS deafness and muteness upon some people. No mistaking. You can’t do to much fudging with that, man. Sorry.
Iconoclast
Ex. 4:10-12
But Moses said to the LORD, “O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” Then the LORD said to him, “Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes (Heb. from shin yod mem. To put or set) them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you are to speak.”
Meph - do you believe that God personally decides before each person is born whether they are going to be born deaf or not? Are ALL people who are born deaf specifically determined by God personally to be deaf? God says, "Oh, Bob is about to be born. I would like him to be deaf. Oh, and there is Bill about to be born. Let's see. Yep, we will make him a hearing person." Is this what you believe this verse is saying?
Is there ANY license here in this speech for God to be referring to the fact that He designed humans and has a complete working knowledge of DNA and that He Himself also built in entropy into the system and thus introduced random information loss such that some people are born deaf and some are not? Could God possibly simply mean that whenever He chooses He can directly intervene and fix any sort of anatomical ailment that the system He built produced because, after all, He is the designer and knows everything about the system? And that if He can do this, how can Moses possibly doubt His ability to help Moses say what He wants?
Couldn't it be argued that you are taking massive literary license with this particular text that is NOT specifically designed to communicate to us technical information about How God creates individual humans?
Couldn't it be argued that you are taking the same literary license as someone who takes Jesus' words that you must hate your father and mother and turns them into an inviolable principle?
Shouldn't we limit how far we take these kinds of references to the specific context and intent of the speaker at that moment?
My interpretation of this passage is that God is simply communicating to Moses that He is more than capable of helping Moses with His speaking concerns. God is in no way explicitly trying to communicate that He personally decides on an individual basis whether Bob is going to be deaf or not. It is of course true that God makes people deaf or not in that He designed the entire system and is responsible for it. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" is always true at the highest level for God designed and created the entire system that does this. But it is not true at the detail level where some tornado destroys your house. Neither Satan nor God is behind the wheel of the tornado, directing it toward your particular house.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/27/2003 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Couldn't it be argued that sometimes I use a BDB lexicon while looking at the Hebrew Masoretic text of a OT passage, bringing to bear info about the context and what have you, look at the key words in the passage, and then do word studies on those words to see how they are commonly used in not only a particular book, but throughout the Old Testament...
and on THAT basis see what the more probable range of meaning is about a text?
Just maybe?
Here. You try. Just to start you off...
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07760
Now, start here and after you finish, tell me which interpretation you really think fits more appropriately. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 8/28/2003 6:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey all,
My take (for what it's worth)
The debate over what the Exodus text means is kind of straying the topic away from the original post. Meph, just being honest... I'm not really following your posts here lately. A couple of weeks ago you were arguing that God loves Satan, and now you seem to be arguing against Icon that God was the directing cause of the Nazi guards torturing of Zosia. I don't think that this is what you believe, but that was the topic of this discussion. Of course, your whole thread on Romans 9 where you keep trying to find middle ground between a deterministic view of salvation and the Arminian view of salvation has left me totally confused on what you believe. But that is for the other thread.
Anyway, back to this topic... I think that Borg sums it up well when he says quote:
Icon, thanks for the response. It's left me thinking that perhaps our views of God's will differs, well it's obvious they do. I would stand under the idea that no one, no man, beast, angel, etc., can ever stand in the way of God's will: Dan. 4:35, 5:22-23, Job 42:2, Isa. 44:28. Nowhere in the Bible do I see people standing in the way of God's will or what He wants to accomplish. I cannot imagine that several mere men under the name of Nazi's in some way went against God's will and stood in opposition to Him. From what I gather, God does all that He pleases.
I think that Icon's answer to this post was right on. That God's will cannot be thwarted is not at issue here. We all agree on this. The question is what is God's will for men. IF the truth of God's will is that he has created a world where he controls every aspect of reality, including the actions of humans, then Borg's understanding of the nature of reality is correct. But, if the nature of God's will for mankind is that the be free to choose life or death (as Icon has argued) then Borg is incorrect in his beliefs about God.
So, what does scripture say... quote:
De 30:19 I call Heaven and earth to record today against you. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore, choose life, so that both you and your seed may live, 20 so that you may love the LORD your God, and that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him. For He is your life and the length of your days,
Seems pretty clear that God wants people to choose life, right? ("therefore choose life") But isn't it obvious that there are some people in this world who do not choose life? In fact, many who God was addressing in this particular instance chose death. Borg, how can you say quote:
Nowhere in the Bible do I see people standing in the way of God's will or what He wants to accomplish. I cannot imagine that several mere men under the name of Nazi's in some way went against God's will and stood in opposition to Him.
when there are clearly people who choose death when God commanded them to choose life?
OK, so Jesus was, and is, the Son of God. As such his words and actions would be an excellent place to find out about the nature of reality and God's will for man. So check what he said here (I'm sure you've read this before but it needs to be repeated) quote:
Lu 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!
Is this not another clear example of God saying that his will was to gather the children of Jerusalem together under his wing, but "they were not willing" --it didn't happen.
Sorry if this is sounds a little basic, but this seems pretty clear to me. Some things happen against what desires to happen. The eason is that God has given humans freedom to love God and live a life of love or reject his will and choose death.
Looking forward to the continued discussion...
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/28/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Borg: Now relating this back to Zosia, and along with Romans 9, what if God wanting to show His objects of mercy His greater love for them, determined that Zosia was to be tortured. To make His followers stand in awe of His greatness towards them? What if Zosia was raised up for the purpose of being a vessel of destruction? And do we have rights to complain once more? As Romans 9 says, NO!
Doc: Rom. 9:22-23 "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—"
Are you saying that you and other vessels of mercy should feel more loved by God, and should love God at all more, because he didn’t ordain that you be a vessel of destruction like he did Zosia? Is your election made clearer and brighter by its contrast with Zosia as well as the damned in hell? Does this really work for you Borg? Honestly? If it doesn’t, I have an alternative interpretation of the passage for you.
Borg: it was Satan who was doing this stuff to him (Job). And yet time and time again, Job charges it to God.
Doc: True enough. But are we to take Job as the model of our theology? Job also says this about God:
"[God] mocks at the calamity of the
innocent.
The earth is given into the hand of the
wicked;
He covers the eyes of its judges –
If it is not he, who then is it? (Job 9:23-24, cf. 21:17-26, 30-32; 24:1-12)
God laughs at the misfortunes of the innocent and causes judges to judge unjustly! Do you think that this biblical author is endorsing this perspective? It gets worse.
,
Why are times not kept by the
Almighty?
And why do those who know him
never see his days? (Job 24:1)
What is the Almighty, that we should serve him?
And what profit do we get if we pray to him?’ (Job 21:15)
From the city the dying groan,
And the throat of the wounded cries
for help;
Yet God pays no attention to their
prayer. (Job 24:12)
The victims of injustice – which God himself is bringing about – cry for help, but God pays no attention to their prayers. Are we to believe that this is the view the author is recommending, in contrast to the theology of Job’s friends?
Job’s depiction of God is even harsher when he considers the injustice of his own state. For example, Job cries out to the Lord,
Your hands fashioned and made me;
And now you turn and destroy me (10:8).
Bold as a lion you hunt me;
And repeat your exploits against me…
Let me alone; that I might find a little
comfort (10:9, 20)
You have turned cruel to me;
and with the might of your hand you
persecute me (30:21).
And to his friends Job testifies,
…God has worn me out;
he has made desolate all my
company.
And he has shrivelled me up…
He has torn me in his wrath, and
hated me;
He has gnashed his teeth at me;
my adversary sharpens his eyes
against me. (16:7-9, cf. 11-17)
With violence he seizes my garment;
He grasps me by the collar of my
tunic… (30:18))
Are we to believe that these are theological insights the author of this work is recommending to his readers? Are we to view God as our "adversary" instead of our "advocate" (cf. Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; I Jn 2:1)?
Isn’t it significantly that, though God praises Job for speaking "straight" (heb. kun, 42:7) in contrast to his friends -- Job's heart was in the right place -- God later reprimands Job for his ignorance (Job 38:2, 42"2) and Job confesses that "the uttered what he did not understand" (42:3) and repents of it (42:6)?
Meph: The text in both the Exodus (4:11) and Jesus passages (John 9) are QUITE clear. The Exodus text specifically says that God SETS deafness and muteness upon some people. No mistaking. You can’t do to much fudging with that, man. Sorry.Check the Hebrew yourself.
Doc Maybe not so clear brazen one. 
Regarding John 9:1-5, it’s perhaps significant that the original Greek does not have Jesus saying "this [blindness] was done in order that." That whole phrase is inserted by translaters. The text simply has a hina subjunctive clause, "let God be glorified." I give several pages to this in Satan and the Problem of Evil. Iconoclast is right: Jesus was refuting the presupposition of the disciples questions (viz. God's behind it, cf. Lk 13:1-5 for a similar approach by Jesus).
In any event, since Jesus without exception came against blindness, etc. as directly or indirectly coming from the devil, and since he did so expressing the will of his Father, it seems odd to use this passage to overturn all this an argue that blindness, etc. is actually PART of the Father’s will.
Regarding the Exodus Passage, it’s may be important to note that God speaks of the human condition in general terms in this verse. As Terrence Fretheim (as good a Hebrew and OT scholars as they come) observes, the passage does not imply that God picks and chooses which individuals will be deaf, mute or blind, "as if God entered into the womb of every pregnant woman and determined whether and how a child would have disabilities." It only implies that God created the kind of world where mortals may become disabled. (T. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation (Louisville, KY.: John Knox, 1991), 72. ). As Iconoclast argued, God created a risky world in which natural processes can be corrupted by free agents with the result that mortals are sometimes "flogged" (mastix--the unusual phrase often used in the Gospels to describe these infirmities – signifying Satan’s oppression, cf. Acts 10:38 )) with infirmities like deafness and muteness. The point of the passage is simply that God wanted Moses to know that as Creator he is able to work around such obstacles in achieving his objectives. In the warfare ministry of Jesus, God went further and demonstrated that the presence of his Kingdom is evidenced by overcoming such obstacles altogether. Jesus frees these people from Satan’s "flogging."
So, oh brazen one, maybe not so clear, despite your fine lexicon research. 
Doc-o-rama
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | WHOOPS. Taking this off.
Sorry for the disturbance, Ross. Ya'll keep going... | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/28/2003 9:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Ross, I appreciate your bringing it back in. De 30:19 does say that. But if you read further on into 31:16 God tells Moses that he is going to die, that these people are going to go into the land and they are going to play the "harlot" with the gods and people of the land. Yes God wants them to choose Him, but do they actually in and of themselves have the power to do so. One minute God seems to be saying "choose me, choose me" and the next He seems to be giving Moses an oath that these people will turn away from Him. Now why is that? The way that I've understood it is that the reason Salvation was given to the Gentiles is because the Jews first rejected it. The reason it was spread to all nations, is because the Jews fell away. Couldn't this be hitting a little bit on what Edwards talked about with God's "desired will" and His "decreed will"? Yes God wanted them to choose Him, but they weren't going to, because, salvation had to be brought into the rest of the world. I also view this as God making a statement of disclaim. This way people cannot hold Him responsible for future actions. Does that make sense?
Luke 13, again, and I hate to use this "copout" but God's desired will and decreed will. What, in the end was going to bring Him most glory. Gathering the people together, or dying on a cross?
You said God has enabled us to live a life of love to God. Maybe a little personal, when was the last time you lived an hour solely for God? The truth is, is that if true love is the love that I give back to God with my "freewill" Holy Mary, what in the world is my marriage going to look like? If true love is slapping the other person in the face, if true love is saying get out of my life, if true love is going against EVERYTHING that the other person wants from us... i think you get my point. True love isn't that we loved God but that He loved us, 1 Jn 4:10.
Doc: I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for all the Scriputre. I enjoy having verses thrown at me more than the philosophical stuff, Is 8:20. But I would say that I see God's love more visible in me perhaps, when I look at other people. I think in this instance love can be interchanged with grace. I see God's grace in the fact that I don't live in a thrid world country. I see God's love in that I grew up in a Christian home, not an abusive one. I see God's love in that I'm healthy and strong. I find God's love manifested more deeply in me that He had grace on me and I didn't have to live through the hell of WWII. It makes me all the more thankful that God has saved a sinner like me, for no reason at all, when my end could have been just as justly due as Zosia or the millions of people that are in hell.
About the Job passages, I appreciate it. Just a quick thought though. Do we spend more time at the though process of Job or the beginning and end of Job's conclusion. I think in the beginning of Job, Job's heart was in the right place, 1:20,21. But as time went on, as he processed over all this jazz, as his friends counseled him, he began to seem as though he were slipping. But in the end he again tends to come back to the sovereignty of God and the justice of God, especially the last four or five chapters, when God puts him in his place. Are we to take the thought process/dialogue in the middle chapters to be what Job truly stood for? I don't think so. I think this idea ties into Psalm 73. In the idea that the Asaph is crying out to God and basically saying, "Why do the wicked always prosper? Why do the evil seem to have everything and be blessed by you, while I'm being cursed, and frowned upon?" Are we to take the majority of Ps 73 to be the way that God actually deals with us? Or are we to more focus on the end of the Psalm when Asaph concludes that he is wrong. 17"Until I went into the sanctuary of God; Then I understood their end. Surely YOU set them in slippery places; YOU cast them down to destruction. Oh, how they are brought to desolation, as in a moment..." This seems to be a contradiction of types as to what Asaph was feeling earlier. Instead we don't see God any longer as prospering them, or blessing them, or smiling down on them. Just a thought, let me know what you think. I would appreciate it greatly.
grace and peace,
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kenya
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/28/2003 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | Borg, I don't want to join the debate but I read this one because I saw your name and I think from other things I have read by you, that you have a good understanding of the Lord. :) I don't like the philosophy stuff either, but I like that you have used alot of verses. I love the Bible and God very much, and it has been a little hard to read everything you guys have written, and some of it is "above my head" (plus I didn't read this book on Zosia), but I thank you because the openness quality of God is something I have struggled with because I really don't see it in the Bible, but I know of ALOT of verses that say very much the opposite of what oppeness says (like predestination for example). So, when I first heard about oppeness, it greatly confused me and I had a very disturbed feeling about it even though I didn't know much about it. So I have learned alot from being in here and I am so glad that there are people who are not just open view people so that I could learn from them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/28/2003 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross, I appreciate your honesty. I regrett to say that this is probably something that I'm going to have to plead a little bit of ignorance to. God's decreed will and desired will is not something that has ever really made sense to me either. The way that I understand it, is that God has a desired will, however His decreed will, that which will come to pass, that which will happen, is something that gives Him greater amounts of glory. Going under the preconcieved notion that God does everything for His glory, it's His decreed will that brings this about in a better way. Now I know that not all Calvinists agree with this stance, it isn't something I've dug into that much, but I can see where they get their ideas. "The Lord doesn't delight in the destruction of the wicked" and yet it so often seems as though He destroys the wicked in a joyful sense, because His glory is going to be seen. The ruining and hardening of Pharoah can be seen in this light. We can't imagine that God did this joyfully, yet we see that His glory is seen even greater throughout Israel. Does this make a little more sense? But again, even if the good Calvinist views it this way, we still have to addmit that there is much mystery involved with it.
g n p
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/28/2003 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Examples of humans not doing God's will:
Isaiah 30
1 Oh, rebellious children, says the LORD,
who carry out a plan, but not mine;
who make an alliance, but against my will,
adding sin to sin;
2 who set out to go down to Egypt
without asking for my counsel,
to take refuge in the protection of Pharaoh,
and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt;
1 John 5:14 And this is the boldness we have in him, that IF we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.
(A clear conditionality is here expressed, with the required converse being true: We MIGHT ask something that is NOT God's will).
Heb. 13:20 Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
(One has to wonder why the statement bolded above would even need to be said, if in fact everyone without exception always does God's will).
Matt 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
This verse is patently absurd if in fact all people without exception always do God's will.
2 Pet. 3:9 says God is not willing that any should perish, but that all might come to repentance. However, we know that most will in fact perish.
Matt. 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Which is it, ALL without exception do the will of God and therefore ALL will enter the kingdom of heaven, or to the contrary do some (more precisely, MOST) not enter the kingdom because they FAIL to do the will of God?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/28/2003 7:53 PM (GMT -6) | | I like Bible verses more than philosophy too. Its just that, experience has taught me that simply quoting verses doesn’t do much, for we all interpret the Bible from a framework. Nevertheless, for what its worth, regarding the whole issue of whether or not God’s will is always carried out, here’s a few verses that impress me.
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways…then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live...(Duet 30:12-19).
If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right….he shall surely live, says the Lord GOD….The person who sins shall die….But if the wicked turn away from all their sins…they shall surely live; they shall not die. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?… Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord GOD. Turn, then, and live. (Ezek. 18:5,9, 20, 23, 31-32).
We bring good or evil OUT Of OUR OWN HEART. Evil in OUR heart does not come from God, either causally or by ordination (in case someone supposes there’s a difference here.)
The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks (Lk 6:45).
King Solomon is said to have done "what was evil in the sight of the LORD… because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel" (I Kgs 11:6, 9.) So too, king Rehoboam did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the LORD" (2 Chron 12:14). Similarly, Zedekiah "did what was evil in the sight of the LORD" because "he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel" (2 Chron 36:12-13). And the reason why Jerusalem had degenerated to such a low moral point during the time of Jeremiah, according to the Bible, was because God's people had "a stubborn and rebellious heart"and had "turned aside and gone away" (Jere 5:23). The Lord had been calling on them to "wash your heart clean of wickedness so that you may be saved." And he had asked them, " How long shall your evil schemes lodge within you?(Jere 4:14).
The Bible also discloses that evil originates in free agents, not in God, by revealing that out of his love God is frequently frustrated by the way people obstinately resist his plans (e.g. Isa. 63:10 Acts 7:51; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7, cf. Eph. 4:30). Indeed, God’s heart breaks over people’s rebelliousness (e.g. Exod. 34:9; 33:3,5; Deut. 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27; Judges 2:19; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chron. 30:8; 36:13; Ne 9:16; Isa. 46:12; 48:4; Jer. 7:26; Hos. 4:16).
How all this squares with meticulous and universal predestination I haven’t a clue. Also…
The lawyers and Sadducees of Jesus’ day"rejected God’s purpose for themselves" (Lk 7:30) by refusing the ministry of John the Baptist. Even more explicit is the message of Isaiah to the children of Israel (given by J.Earp above)
Oh, rebellious children, says the LORD,
who carry out a plan, but not mine;
who make an alliance, but against my will,
adding sin to sin. (Is. 30:1)
Examples of God’s frustration and disappointment over the choices humans make – or refuse to make -- permeate the biblical narrative. To give just a few examples, we can’t miss the sorrow and frustration in the words of the Lord as he speaks about a judgment he is bringing on Israel in Ezekiel 22. "I sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it," the Lord decries. But unfortunately, he concludes, "I found no one. Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them…" (Ezek. 22:30–31).
How can God genuinely look for someone he predestined wouldn’t be there?
Moreover,
In Jeremiah the Lord tells us that whenever he prophecies about the future destruction of a nation, it is in hopes that the nation will repent of their wicked ways so he might "change his mind about the disaster that [he] intended to bring on it." (Jere 18:7-8). The Lord is willing to adjust his plans if people will adjust their ways, for God has no delight in the destruction of the wicked (Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11; 2 Pet 3:9). The Lord "does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone" (Lam 3:33). But he DOES grieve people – showing that he doesn’t always get to do what he WILLS to do!
Finally, no where is our ability to freely thwart God’s purpose more evident than in the damnation of people. The Bible teaches that God desires every person to accept his love and be saved (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4, 4:10; 2 Pet 3:9; cf. Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11). There is no partiality in God that leads him to love one person more than another, or to arbitrarily select some for salvation rather than others (Deut 10:17; 2 Chron 19:7; Ac 10:34; Rom 2:11; Ja 3:17). God wants all to be saved and he created them with the hope that they would be saved.Jesus died "for the sins of the whole world" (I Jn 2:2), YET, some people are lost – showing that GOD DOESN’T ALWAYS GET HIS WAY.
Blessings ya’ll.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
| 54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:03 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|