 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/28/2005 10:14 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi everyone,
various said...
Lee: I think there is an implication here that God is taking responsibility.
John: It seems clear that God allowed Satan to "sift" Job (kind of like Satan desired to have Peter, to sift him).
Yes, then isn’t God ultimately responsible? Knowing what would then happen?
various said...
John: One can be be mistaken without sinning, especially with regard to the nature of God.
Lee: Then this undoes all the narrator's comments in this book. All narrator's comments in the whole Bible?! I don't think that will do...
John: No, I don't think it "undoes" all the narrator's comments in the book, not at all. Do you deny that a human's finite concepts of God and God's ways are not necessarily sinful?
Yes, I edited my remark! You're quick in responding…
I changed this to say "this puts all the narrators comments up for questioning." So now we can have anyone claiming that a narrator's comment is incorrect, and be able to undo most any scripture.
various said...
Job 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"
Lee: Maybe this is also just the narrator's opinion? Maybe the Lord didn't really say that, maybe the devil didn't do anything to Job either, maybe the whole account is wrong!
John: The "whole account" is epic poetry. As such, it never was meant to be interpreted in a literalistic, wooden fashion.
Then you might even be saying this was possibly a made-up interaction! Well, I didn't expect you would go that far…
various said...
Lee: Well, was the narrator right or wrong here also, though? That's what I do insist on knowing...
John: "Right or wrong" assumes a dialectic that simply won't fit poetry. That's all I'm saying. It is not an issue of whether the narrator was "right or wrong" in my view. It's poetry meant to reflect upon the suffering of the righteous, not to meant to give systematic theology or a thoroughly worked out theodicy per se.
OK, so maybe this whole account is made up, to illustrate a point. Then what else fits this description? The Psalms? But Jesus used verses from the Psalms to make theological points:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
He even called this "the law," here! Now if that is possible with the Psalms, which are even more definitely poetical, then how much more is this kind of interpretation possible with the book of Job?
John said...
: It's kind of ironic that I should find myself arguing with a Calvinist over whether or not mystery is a valid way of looking at the problem of evil.
I agree that there's mysteries! But we shouldn't be holding off, where scripture is (I believe) clear.
Jeff Scott said...
What is it that Job was supposedly wrong about other than not properly justifying God?
I think that was just the problem with Job's response, myself, I think that is what God rebuked him for…
Bryan said...
Does this scenario mean that one of us is sinning by having an incorrect understanding of god/reality?
No, I don't think it's sinning to be mistaken:
Philippians 3:15 And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.
He didn't say "Well, get busy repenting!"
Bryan said...
saying god was wrong … [Job] does do later. this doesn't prove that god brought the affliction, only that at that particular time, job accepted that it came from god, which could have been wrong, and didn't feel the need to say that god shouldn't have afflicted him.
Then why does the prologue say Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing, if it would have been sin, if God had been responsible? Why was that not rebuked there?
I think you have to go farther, like John is apparently doing, and say this evaluation was also wrong. Then if we continue to pull on this thread, we may have the whole sweater unraveled eventually…
Matthew 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
A narrator comment in a parable! Not to be interpreted plainly anymore…
Revelation 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
A narrator comment in apocalypse! Not to be interpreted plainly … anymore …
Bryan said...… this verse should actually be read: "...he still holds fast his integrity, although you urged ("incited"  me against him 'for the purpose of' [you] destroying him..."?
This might be possible, but all the translations I checked imply God is saying the devil tried to get God to do this. But if the interpretation you are giving here is correct, then why doesn't God still have responsibility? For the devil could do nothing without God's permission, and certainly God knew the consequences of mentioning Job, and then removing the hedge of protection, as mentioned above.
Bryan said...
… isn't it possible that the narrator is not wrong or even giving his opinion at all, but simply stating what happened -- they came and were blubbering about what a bad guy god is -- and not giving any sort of commentary on that…
Well, I would respond by asking if the other statements in the epilogue are also up for questioning, then:
Job 42:10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.
A mere opinion? Maybe it wasn't the Lord who did that, either…
Bryan said...
did you notice that job says in 42.2 that no purpose of god's can be thwarted? while i'm sure lee would have no problem accepting this statement as a calvinist, it's a bit tough to square with the oft-quoted on this site verse luke 7.30 in which this is precisely what happens with the pharisees.
I think we are given reason to hope that all will be saved, though, even these rebellious Pharisees. But let's note that God says again that "Job has spoken what is right about me," which implies that Job was back on track now, and thus approves this statement that no purpose of God's can be thwarted.
Bryan said...
i can't really see anywhere in job that the lord corrects him on any thinking which doesn't hinder his devotion to god
But Job's devotion was hindered by just the doubt about God's goodness, though he never doubted God was in control! So I think the point here is that yes, God is in control, and also he is good:
James 5:11 You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/30/2005 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee said...
Bryan said...
… isn't it possible that the narrator is not wrong or even giving his opinion at all, but simply stating what happened -- they came and were blubbering about what a bad guy god is -- and not giving any sort of commentary on that… Well, I would respond by asking if the other statements in the epilogue are also up for questioning, then: Job 42:10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before. A mere opinion? No, look at the words I'm using: "isn't it possible that the narrator is not...giving his opinion at all, but simply stating what happened?" Let's say you're at my house playing Monopoly. John's there too, but he's a nerd (if you dare quote me out of context on this, God has predestined me to find out where you live and steal everything in your house for it) so he's sitting in the corner writing in his diary and being antisocial. Now, I'm winning constantly and every now and then I get up to go to the bathroom, which I do because I have a bladder infection, but you don't know this so you start accusing me of adding extra play money into my pile, which you think comes from the bathroom. You're actually wrong, but due to some key facts you're missing out on, you think you're not. John is in the corner with his diary and he starts recording what happens. He's closer to me than you so he's knows about the bladder infection thing, but he simply states that you are yelling at me. Why? "He's yelling at Bryan for cheating." You're assuming that John would say, "But Bryan is not cheating; Lee's just wrong" except that John doesn't need to say that because long before that, John has ALREADY SAID I had a bladder infection and wasn't cheating. Same thing here. You're assuming that if the brothers and sisters were wrong in giving Job comfort because GOD (rather than someone else) brought the disaster, that the narrator would have said so. But why does he need to do this when he has already told us in the prologue that Satan did the afflicting? It's not his opinion; he's just saying what happened.
Lee said...
Then why does the prologue say Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing, if it would have been sin, if God had been responsible? Why was that not rebuked there?
Okay, first of all it says "...did not sin OR charge god..." rather than "by."
I'm saying this:
For Job to charge God with wrong-doing when God is never wrong is something God apparently didn't like. In my view, as I said, what Job got rebuked for was sacrificing God's innocence in his effort to proclaim his own (similar to Elihu's reason for being angry in 32.2, but a bit farther). God, he said, is not truely just, but only just because he has the power to change what's just and what isn't. (9.20) This is WAY different than how Job felt about the situation in ch 2.
All the narrator is saying is that Job had not yet charged God with wrong like he did in ch 9 and other places. He is making a contrast between Job's attitude towards God in chapter 2 and his attitude toward God later in the book.
To put it in logical formation:
A. God has afflicted me.
B. God is not truely just.
Whether A is true or not, if Job says A, so long as he does not say B, he is not charging God with wrong, that is, he is not saying god is guilty of wrong-doing. So it's fine for the narrator to say this. It does not prove that God "did it" (that A is true). Is this a better explanation?
Lee said...
I think we are given reason to hope that all will be saved, though, even these rebellious Pharisees. But let's note that God says again that "Job has spoken what is right about me," which implies that Job was back on track now, and thus approves this statement that no purpose of God's can be thwarted.
Sure, there's always hope, but would you say that those particular Pharisees could not continue rejecting God's plan so they WITHOUT A DOUBT eventually made it? If there's even a shred of possiblity that they they died continuing to reject God's purpose of their lives, then there is that same degree of possibility that Job is wrong in saying that no purpose of God can be thwarted. To the extent that it's possible the pharisees died rejecting, it's possible Job's wrong. And if he is, that means that when the Lord said "Job has spoken what is right about me," he can not possibly mean everything he said. It's just not possible.
Lee, quoting the Bible, said...
James 5:11 You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. Okay man, the Lord brought about something incredible. We grant you that. He doubled his flocks and everything else he had (excpet the size of his family, peculiarly) and Job got closer to him through the whole thing. This is standard Romans 8.28 stuff; God brings great out of a crap situation. But as Greg constantly points out, "That's not to say he had that purpose going into it." Of course it is possible. I'm just saying it doesn't HAVE to be that way. It's quite likely that the only reason he put the hedges down and let "the Satan" do all that he did was just as it is implied in the prologue: He believed in Job! (and no other reason, at least at first -- later on into the situation, who knows?)
By the way, even though I agree with John that you have to treat the poetic drama genre differently than other scripture, I'm with you on overdoing it. You have some valid points on that.
I wish John would come back.
Is it me or are there a heck of a lot less replys from the board at large when scripture is being discussed rather than current issues...no judgement, just wandering why, though I think this is a fairly provocative thread, nobody comes onto it. Maybe I have to build up some clout.
Bryan.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/30/2005 10:15 PM (GMT -6) | |
I'm still confused, I guess. What exactly is the problem? Is there a verse that creates problems for the open view? Or a verse that seems to add to the problem of evil?
If so, which verse, and how?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/31/2005 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott,
The reason we're talking about this is not that it affects the OV (it doesn't, strictly speaking), but because it affects the warfare world-view, which is related to the OV in that they both argue against meticulous divine control of the universe. Perhaps, I have misappropriated the thread by puting it under OV forum, but the deal is: If God is dierectly/meticulously behind the affliction of Job, it raises questions as to why a good God directly did bad things to a person who didn't deserve it. John and I are arguing that the prologue of Job suggests that God was not directly/metiulously behind his affliction and not in direct meticulous control of Satan's individual actions, but that he simply allowed Satan to excercise his freedom and destructive creativity bound by certain limits within which he was free to do things a number of ways. Thus, God, to appropriate Doc's phrase, "is not to blame," becuase he didn't bring the affliction, just made it possible for Job to be afflicted, and the only reason he did this was to show Satan he had nothing on God or Job and because God believed in Job!
Of course, Lee is arguing, I think, that God knew precisely what Satan would do because God was orchastrating in advance (predestining) each aspect of the affliction via Satan, as well as everything else in the book via other characters and so on. This, in terms of the OV, is problematic, of course, because we don't believe the future is exhaustively settled or meticulously controlled by God, but has more of a Back to the Futuresque nature, where the things God, people, Satan, angels, and demons do ALL affect what the future ultimately looks like and that God has created a reality that is foreknown by him, at least in part, as a panorama of possiblities rather than a track of either foreknown and/or predestined certainties. Make sense?Post Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 1/31/2005 8:00:16 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/1/2005 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jef,
Jefscott said...
It sounded like you and John were seeing some verses as problematic for the OV previously
Yeah, we kinda were. I think I feel better about it now, though, even though I'm not completely satisfied. Our issue was with what it means to say that God brought the affliction. Does it mean each act was personally done by God or does it simply mean that God taking the hedge down and letting Satan do whatever he wants is technically God "doing it" or is it not even true at all that God did it. As OV proponents, we don't want to believe it's the former, but since classical theology is the prevailing view of the day, it's very easy to think within its perameters. In addition, Greg has said in his lectures and books that "you give and take away" is Job's incorrect theology, but the author seems to support that idea -- 42.11, 2.3, etc. Of course, I have given some possibilities as to how to reconcile these ideas, but I wan't to hear some others cuz I'm not completely convinced of my own logic.
Bryan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 2/1/2005 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | |
Bryan McCarthy said...
Hey Jef,
Jefscott said...
It sounded like you and John were seeing some verses as problematic for the OV previously
Yeah, we kinda were. I think I feel better about it now, though, even though I'm not completely satisfied. Our issue was with what it means to say that God brought the affliction. Does it mean each act was personally done by God or does it simply mean that God taking the hedge down and letting Satan do whatever he wants is technically God "doing it" or is it not even true at all that God did it. As OV proponents, we don't want to believe it's the former, but since classical theology is the prevailing view of the day, it's very easy to think within its perameters. In addition, Greg has said in his lectures and books that "you give and take away" is Job's incorrect theology, but the author seems to support that idea -- 42.11, 2.3, etc.
Just because Satan incited God to raise His hand against Job doesn't mean God did succumb to the incitation. Here's where Satan "incites" God:
Job 1:11"But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face."
But we know from Job 1, God didn't, it was Satan that did the evil.
When scripture presents Satan as tempting Jesus, it doesn't imply Jesus succumbed to the temptation, it just means Satan tempted Jesus. Satan tempted Jesus, Jesus didn't fall for it.
So Job 2:3 really means, "You incited me to raise My hand against Job [but I didn't]". We know that from Job 1.
 Post Edited (Laika) : 2/1/2005 10:23:31 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/1/2005 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
various folks said...
Lee: I would respond by asking if the other statements in the epilogue are also up for questioning, then:
Job 42:10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.
A mere opinion?
Bryan: You're assuming that if the brothers and sisters were wrong in giving Job comfort because GOD (rather than someone else) brought the disaster, that the narrator would have said so. But why does he need to do this when he has already told us in the prologue that Satan did the afflicting? It's not his opinion; he's just saying what happened.
Well, I think "the trouble the Lord brought upon him," is also the narrator's comment, not only Job's relatives' thoughts on this, for if it was an incorrect statement, it should be stated differently, "the trouble they said the Lord had brought."
various folks said...
Lee: Then why does the prologue say Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing, if it would have been sin, if God had been responsible? Why was that not rebuked there?
Bryon: Okay, first of all it says "...did not sin OR charge god..." rather than "by."
But I think either way I can make my conclusion, if it's a sin to say God sinned, which I think it is.
Bryan said...
For Job to charge God with wrong-doing when God is never wrong is something God apparently didn't like.
Yes, thus it's a sin, and thus Job not sinning when he said God did it, must mean God did do this…
Bryan said...
To put it in logical formation:
A. God has afflicted me.
B. God is not truely just.
Whether A is true or not, if Job says A, so long as he does not say B, he is not charging God with wrong, that is, he is not saying god is guilty of wrong-doing. So it's fine for the narrator to say this. It does not prove that God "did it" (that A is true). Is this a better explanation?
Yes, I understand better now, but why did God not write it clearly in response, "I didn't do this, I wasn't involved?" Saying "Job did not sin in what he said," I think comes under the heading of "Job said of me what is right" (Job 42:8), since we may note that Job changed his mind about himself, not about whether God was responsible. All throughout the book, it is stated and assumed that God is responsible, the narrator, Job's relatives, Job and his friends, everyone says God was responsible, and this is never questioned, or even addressed, except to state that this is what happened.
And again, how is God not responsible, if he knew the probable results of mentioning Job to Satan, and then removing the hedge?
various folks said...
Lee: I think we are given reason to hope that all will be saved, though, even these rebellious Pharisees.
Bryan: If there's even a shred of possibility that that they died continuing to reject God's purpose of their lives, then there is that same degree of possibility that Job is wrong in saying that no purpose of God can be thwarted.
Well, I believe we may hope that people may repent even after death, after judgment, even:
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Ezekiel 16:53 However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them…
various folks said...
James 5:11 You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
Bryan: It's quite likely that the only reason he put the hedges down and let "the Satan" do all that he did was just as it is implied in the prologue: He believed in Job! (and no other reason, at least at first -- later on into the situation, who knows?)
But then was God's purpose not to do Job good, from the trouble he knew would come from removing the hedge? I think it was to do Job good, and God wasn't having to change his plan after the devil took advantage of the removed hedge. He had a good purpose to bring out of that, and thus God was responsible, he did it, from the start.
Job 23:10 … when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
"He" meaning God, not the devil! Primarily. Thus God had this in mind from the start, I think, to refine Job, which requires a fire.
Bryan said...
Does it mean each act was personally done by God or does it simply mean that God taking the hedge down and letting Satan do whatever he wants is technically God "doing it" or is it not even true at all that God did it.
I also agree that there are secondary agents involved, thus God is not the source of sin here, though I believe God didn't let Satan loose, God knew just what Satan would do, and that was part of God's plan for good, for Job here.
Laika said...
Just because Satan incited God to raise His hand against Job doesn't mean God did succumb to the incitation.
Well, I don't know how we can say God was not involved in Job being struck, though. If I let a bull be out of control, that has a habit of goring people, then I am responsible for the consequences:
Exodus 21:29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
John said...
If God is REALLY behind the scene "pulling all the strings" as it were, and everything that happens does so according to God's determinative will and bidding, as this verse seems to suggest (when considered by itself), then it would seem to lend credibility to the basic philosophy of Calvinism (determinism).
Well, I believe that God's children can really choose, though unbelievers, and the devil, really can't. Thus there is real liberty, after submitting to God!
Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden…"
John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/7/2005 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | Heyya Laika,
Awesome point, sister. You don't say much, but when you do, it counts.
Heyya, Lee
Lee said...
Well, I believe we may hope that people may repent even after death, after judgment, even:
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Ezekiel 16:53 However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them…
Well, this is kinda interesting stuff. Hardly what I would call typical of reformed theology, however. Yeah? I dunno if you can really say that the ezekiel passage makes the point you're driving at cuz i don't know what he means by "fortunes." it appears that you are taking this to mean people, but that's kind of a stretch, dontchya think?
Lee said...
for if it was an incorrect statement, it should be stated differently, "the trouble they said the Lord had brought."
Yeah, that's what I was asking you, why? It looks like from this next bit, though, you understand the point i was making so your post must reflect a progressive understanding:
Lee said...
Yes, I understand better now, but why did God not write it clearly in response, "I didn't do this, I wasn't involved?"
Well, first, i wouldn't say he's not involved, just not the cause. But to answer your question, why didn't he tell Job what really happend? Well, this is the great dilemma of Job. I have a theory. If God had had told Job what happened and how he had picked Job out of all people in the world to show the ability of humans to love God in the absence of any temporal benefits, Job would probably have A) went on an ego trip, B) been disgusted with God for being used as bait (even though this would be a pretty simplistic way of looking at it), or C) been devastated that God had believed in him above all others and all he had done in return was question God's character. I think Job wasn't ready for the answer. And actually, we don't know that he never told Job. I kinda think he later, when Job wasn't so close to the situation. The narrator apparently knows and if Job wrote the book (one possibility among many), this is precisely what happened.
Lee said...
Saying "Job did not sin in what he said," I think comes under the heading of "Job said of me what is right" (Job 42:8), since we may note that Job changed his mind about himself, not about whether God was responsible.
Sure, this is valid. But the fact remains that we simply don't know, which means that my assertion that it doesn't come under that heading is equally valid. As far as whether or not Job changed his mind about God, from my persepective, it's immaterial. Everyone in the book says things both right and wrong. Apart from other scripture saying precisely the same thing about a given attribute of God or whatever (which would cover a lot of it, admittedly, but not so much the particulars of who did what here), there's just no way to tell which of the statements is right and which is wrong. And in the end, you still can't get around the fact that he was wrong about the purposes of God being thwarted so God couldn't have meant EVERYTHING in EVEN JOB'S CONFESSION was right unless of course you believe in the chance to repent after death and judgement thing that you brought up, which is worth exploring, but at this point, is debatable AT BEST.
I would argue Job got the message right (that god is good and shouldn't be accused of otherwise), but missed some of the details (like god being the author of this whole mess).
Lee said...
But then was God's purpose not to do Job good, from the trouble he knew would come from removing the hedge?
No, bro. I really think God's purpose was just like it suggests in the prologue, to prove that he's lovable becuz he's god and not becuz he gives us stuff. And he knew Job could handle it. Why not?
Also, you didn't ask, but i was thinking of saying it about something else you said and i can't remember where: there is the purpose of the book, which i think is to show that we don't always know what's going on and that angels, demons, and satan have the capability to to influence god to do things he might not do otherwise and that we should not challenge or accuse god since we don't know all the facts.
Lee said...
Well, I don't know how we can say God was not involved in Job being struck, though. If I let a bull be out of control, that has a habit of goring people, then I am responsible for the consequences:
Exodus 21:29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
You have an excellent point here. I'll bet you had fun writing that one. =>
Here's what I think: given his purpose (to prove that he's lovable for who he is rather than merely becuz of what he gives us), i'd say it's okay for god to be involved, but saying he caused the whole thing for some sort of soul-making or character-developing is a bit of a leap since it doesn't say or even imply this anywhere in the book, even by his dopey friends. =P
Lee said...
Well, I believe that God's children can really choose, though unbelievers, and the devil, really can't. Thus there is real liberty, after submitting to God!
Wow, we're just bustin' up all the augustinian molds tonight aren't we? between this and the ezekiel thing, i'd say this is your most liberal, anti-reformed post yet (based on a relatively small sampling). maybe you belong here after all. one of us rather than "them?"
this is a cool concept, but i really don't see it in scipture. the ones you quoted (gen 2.16, jn 8.36) are great for freedom of course and the latter actually does suggest some sort of freedom not available to unbelievers, but i don't think it's referring to the philisophical realm of human choice; in fact, the context backs me up on this one. (he's contrasting the freedom he has to offer with the slavery of sin.) and the genesis verse doesn't necessarily rule out unbelievers having choice. in fact, at this time, it's not really about unbelief vs. belief since there's nobody but them on the planet and they are essentially neutral at this point, not having made a decision in either direction (towards god or away) yet.
so then, would you say believers have libertarian free will?
peace and love and other stuff in the bible,
bryan
Post Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 2/7/2005 4:42:24 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/8/2005 9:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bryan,
various folks said...
Lee: Well, I believe we may hope that people may repent even after death, after judgment, even: Ezekiel 16:53 However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom…
Bryan: I don't know what he means by "fortunes." it appears that you are taking this to mean people, but that's kind of a stretch, dontchya think?
Well, the Israelites who would also be restored must mean people, though, or else the people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim who settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites who were deported, fulfilled this prophecy about Israel. Or the Arab conquerors, when they occupied Jerusalem. Or the crusaders…
But I don't think they did!
various folks said...
Lee: Yes, I understand better now, but why did God not write it clearly in response, "I didn't do this, I wasn't involved?"
Bryan: Well, first, i wouldn't say he's not involved, just not the cause.
Well, any involvement brings some responsibility though, does it not? Being just an accessory, to a crime, is still punishable…
various folks said...
But … why didn't he tell Job what really happened? … I think Job wasn't ready for the answer. And actually, we don't know that he never told Job. I kinda think he [told him] later, when Job wasn't so close to the situation. The narrator apparently knows and if Job wrote the book (one possibility among many), this is precisely what happened.
Yes, I agree that Job did not know during the trial, the details of what was happening, and that he nevertheless did know eventually. But still, why does God not make this clear that he was not the source, in the analysis of the events in this book? Everyone, including the narrator, everywhere in this book, they all agree that God did it, and this is never questioned.
various folks said...
Lee: Saying "Job did not sin in what he said," I think comes under the heading of "Job said of me what is right" (Job 42:8), since we may note that Job changed his mind about himself, not about whether God was responsible.
Bryan: Sure, this is valid. But the fact remains that we simply don't know ... there's just no way to tell which of the statements is right and which is wrong.
Well, my question would be "Did God really say 'Job spoke what was right about me'?" If God did indeed say that, then we know for sure that what God is referring to, is a correct statement.
Now we can know what God was referring to, by seeing what Job changed in his view! He changed his view of himself, and not his view of whether God had done this. Thus his statement that God did this, must be correct, it seems to me.
Bryan said...
And in the end, you still can't get around the fact that he was wrong about the purposes of God being thwarted …
But this also comes in the part of the passage where God expresses his approval of what Job said, including, specifically, what he just had said. So I think this has God's seal on it, too.
various folks said...
Bryan: It's quite likely that the only reason he put the hedges down and let "the Satan" do all that he did was just as it is implied in the prologue: He believed in Job! (and no other reason, at least at first -- later on into the situation, who knows?)
Lee: But then was God's purpose not to do Job good, from the trouble he knew would come from removing the hedge?
Bryan: I really think God's purpose was just like it suggests in the prologue, to prove that he's lovable becuz he's god and not becuz he gives us stuff. And he knew Job could handle it.
But James uses Job's example to show that God brings a good result!
James 5:11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about.
So the point here is not, I think, only that God is worthy just because of his character (though he is!). The good result is also borne out in the epilogue as well, "Twice as much." Which I think includes twice the children! I think the "twice" here without qualification indicates they were believers, and that Job didn't ultimately lose the ones that died in the storm.
Bryan said...
Also … we don't always know what's going on and that angels, demons, and satan have the capability to to influence god to do things he might not do otherwise and that we should not challenge or accuse god since we don't know all the facts.
I agree with the first part! For sure, it's "puzzling reflections in a mirror." But no, I don't believe the devil can get God to do something he might otherwise not have done, remember, the first move was God's, here! "Have you considered my servant Job?" Surely he knew the probable (speaking OVT-style) outcome, and had a good plan, in this.
various folks said...
Lee: Well, I don't know how we can say God was not involved in Job being struck, though. If I let a bull be out of control…
Bryan: i'd say it's okay for god to be involved, but saying he caused the whole thing for some sort of soul-making or character-developing is a bit of a leap since it doesn't say or even imply this anywhere …
But Job does say this!
Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
And Elihu, too…
Job 36:15 He delivers the afflicted by their affliction and opens their ear by adversity.
various folks said...
Lee: Well, I believe that God's children can really choose, though unbelievers, and the devil, really can't. Thus there is real liberty, after submitting to God!
Byran: Wow, we're just bustin' up all the augustinian molds tonight aren't we?
Icons were made to be clasted? Let's see, "us" or "them"…
How about me being a "thus"?
Bryan said...
[Jn 8:36] actually does suggest some sort of freedom not available to unbelievers, but i don't think it's referring to the philosophical realm of human choice; in fact … he's contrasting the freedom he has to offer with the slavery of sin.
Yes, but a slave to sin does what sin orders, thus I think such people are not choosing, in any real way. I agree that Adam and Eve is a bit doubtful, here is a different passage that indicates real freedom for believers:
1 Corinthians 7:38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
So the "better" choice is not the only choice! And God's will is not a monorail, there's room to choose, within God's will, in fact, the inside is bigger than the outside, what is allowed is infinite, what is forbidden is small, even finite, in comparison, like the fence around the tree in the garden.
Bryan said...
so then, would you say believers have libertarian free will?
No, not in the sense that believers can choose any ( non-contradictory) action whatever. I believe God sets bounds, so believers won't stray too far, such as when he judged the Corinthian Christians, even putting some early in the grave, so they would not be condemned with the world (1 Cor. 11:32).
Bryan said...
peace and love and other stuff in the bible…
Thankee kindly! To you, too…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 2/8/2005 8:12:58 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/11/2005 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Heyy Lee,
My question is, how does the fact that God used/uses suffering to bring about stellar growth and progress prove that was/is the reason it happened/happens? | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/13/2005 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | | So then, if i understand you correctly, your contention would be that all [at least Christian] suffering is God discplining and refining us and that his disciplining and refining is always through suffering? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/13/2005 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bryan,
Bryan McCarthy said...
So ... your contention would be that all [at least Christian] suffering is God discplining and refining us ...
Well, I wouldn't say "all," I would agree though that unbeliever's suffering does not make them godlier. But for believer's sufferings, I would also expect other purposes than refining:
Ephesians 3:13 I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory.
Bryan said...
... and that his disciplining and refining is always through suffering?
I do think that it is!
Hebrews 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant...
I have considered what the Christian psychologists, inner healing folks, and others say about character change, and they do tend to leave out this note, which I think is a critical one. The real problem in character flaws is not our past!
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves..."
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:53 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 |
|
|