 |
 | 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/16/2005 2:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Bryan,
God does claim he did this!
Job 2:3 And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.
Satan, God says, incited him, yet God says he "ruined Job." And Satan didn't even initiate this, "incited me" has a cause too, and the cause is God:
Job 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"
Then is God to blame? Job says he's not! He calls his wife's urging him to "curse God and die," speaking foolishly. And Job seems to realize what's happening, in glimpses, too:
Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tried me, I shall come out as gold.
That's good! And thus God is not sinning, by bringing this about...
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) : 1/16/2005 1:08:56 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/16/2005 4:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Heyya Lee,
Thanks for the post. Okay, I guess I'm still not understanding.
I have listened to lectures of Greg's on job, the problem of evil,
the open view, etc. and I want to get it, but it's just confusing to me.
Greg's argument in God at War is that there is little difference between
God allowing something to happen and ordaining it. This makes a lot
of sense to me. I'm having a whole lot of trouble even explaining what
it is I don't understand. I recently read John Piper's comments on the
tsunami, which I'm sure are quite familiar to this board. I tend to be
extremely critical of people who have idealogy that's drastically different
than my own in terms of this and other issues and God is really working
on me in this area. But it does really bother me when I hear the whole
judgement angle on the disaster or even that God was directly involved
becuz it seems entirely possible to me that though God could certainly
alter the weather as a form of judgement, it's also likely that most of the
time the weather operates according to patterns he set up a long time ago
and that the tsunami, for lack of a better explanation, just happened, and
needn't be attributed directly to god regardless of whether God was
responsible for Job's affliction.
Apart from this, my questions regarding the book of Job are:
1. The Lord rebuked Job. What is it he did that was wrong? I mean I had
thought from listening to Greg talk about this that his error was attributing
the works of Satan to God. But as you point out, God admitted to bringing
the disaster upon him and the author of Job confirms it as well. So why did
Job get a scolding?
2. Why did God scold Job and then say he was right?
Actually, these are just what's rolling around in my mind right now. I'm sure there's more
The topic in general and the book in specific are both very confusing to me.
Peace and love and other stuff in the bible,
bryan | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/16/2005 4:35 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Young's Literal Translation renders it as:
Jud 1:25 to the only wise God our Saviour, is glory and greatness, power and authority, both now and to all the ages! Amen.
The phrase translated as "to all the ages" in the above seems to be the main issue.
The Greek word translated "ages" in this passage is aion:
From Strong's: G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.
From what I can tell, the translations which place a "before time" idea in this verse are extrapolating from the Greek phrasing, "to all ages," by which they apparently infer a reference to past ages.
It is a simple matter of straightforward reason to say that the terminology, "before time was" presupposes time preceding ("before"). Before is a "time" word.
P.S.: No offense meant to Lee, but he really isn't the one to be asking about the Open View and Dr. Boyd's beliefs. By his own admission, Lee is a Calvinist (though a rather nice and polite one at that). 
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/17/2005 9:50:41 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/17/2005 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | Thank you very much, John. This helps TONS on the Jude issue. It hadn't even occurred to me that it might be a greek issue, though I know greek only well enough to get me by so my knowledge of it might not have helped me anyway. That makes me feel a lot better, though, cuz if it really said that it would be tough to say it didn't undermine the OV at least a little, in my mind anyway.
That's funny what you said regarding Lee. I suppose it's tough to warn me without making him feel bad, but I think you did very well in that vain. I was confused by the zeal with which he argued for what seemed like a fairly non-OV standpoint. Though he, of course, has a valid intellect with which to speak on this and other topics, his observations on Dr. Boyd's opinions, as you point out, would be difficult to take as accurately representing Greg's own viewpoint and thus probably not address my inquiry. Lee, comments on this statement or on my previous reply are welcome.
John, any ideas about Job, then? | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/17/2005 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | LOL! Hah, Hah, Hah. Well, actually laugh visibily but not audibly. (I'm in a public setting.)
Wow, that was fast John.
YEah, let's hope. But you did a good job on Jude. Thanks, man.
Bryan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/18/2005 11:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bryan,
I must say I wasn't sure quite where you stood. But Jee is correct, I am a (four-point) Calvinist-person, I should have made it clear I'm one of "them" on this message board! And certainly my comments do not speak for Dr. Boyd! I'm not sure I speak for myself, sometimes...
But you did say I could post some more replies! And not being one to be bashful...
Bryan McCarthy said...
God admitted to bringing the disaster upon him and the author of Job confirms it as well. So why did Job get a scolding?
Yes, my view is that indeed God takes responsibility, in the prologue, directly, and in the epilogue, we are told it was the Lord who brought the trouble on Job. I think the rebuke was because of just what Elihu said: Job said he was being unjustly treated, he was justifying himself, instead of God:
Job 40:8 Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
And Job's repentance shows that he changed his mind!
Job 42:6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.
His view of himself had changed! Not his view of whether God was responsible for what had happened to him.
Bryan said...
2. Why did God scold Job and then say he was right?
Yes, Job was wrong in some ways, and right in others. So we have to sift what he said! One hint is that, at the first, we are told "in all this, Job did not sin in what he said." So we can take what he said up to this point as correct:
Job 2:10-11 "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
So God was indeed the first source of what happened to Job, though there were secondary causes, and those causes had other intents than to do Job good, so God was not the source of sin...
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) : 1/18/2005 10:28:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/19/2005 10:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hi Lee,
Lee said...
Yes, Job was wrong in some ways, and right in others. So we have to sift what he said! One hint is that, at the first, we are told "in all this, Job did not sin in what he said." So we can take what he said up to this point as correct:
Mmmkay, but he contrasts Job's rightness with his friends' wrongness. Since his friends got some things right too, like God being powerful and wonderous (let me know if you need verses for this stuff), it's gotta be a little more than merely sifting through what's right and what's not. There is some point of cruciality which Job got right and his friends did not and this made all the difference in the world even though Job was wrong on tons of other stuff. What do you think it is? It doesn't seem like it's just that he was innocent becuz of course he's going to know that he's innocent more than they would (and also more tenacious in defending it).
Lee said...But you did say I could post some more replies! And not being one to be bashful...
Yes, of course! I'm interested in the Augustinian viewpoint as well, even though I already know it pretty well (I'm a recovering Calvinist myself). But I do wish I could here some OV commentary on this subject as well. Anyone?
Lee said...
But Jee is correct, I am a (four-point) Calvinist-person
Last, just out of curiosity...Which point to you leave out? How did you end up here? Seems like most of the people of the other persuasion, come on here to implore us to save God from philosophy, think about the future (which is funny given the topic) implications of our theology, etc. and then get exasperated and leave angry, hurt, or bored. You seem like a bit of an exception. Care to explain? Despite your admitted aversion to the OV itself, what do you think of the exegesis done by Boyd, et al.
peace,
Bryan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/19/2005 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi again, Bryan,
Bryan McCarthy said...
... it's gotta be a little more than merely sifting through what's right and what's not.
I agree that Job's friends were not completely wrong at every point. Yet if scripture says "In all this, Job did not sin in what he said," we may take all that Job said here as correct, I would say.
That's the point at issue! Was God the ultimate cause of what happened to Job? We have a statement here from Job that God was, with God's confirmation here.
Bryan said...
There is some point of cruciality which Job got right and his friends did not ...
Yes, I think it was the purpose of suffering, Job's friends all chorused again and again that Job must be suffering because of sins he had committed, and Job said he wasn't. Again and again. I think that is what God refers to when he says "Job spoke of God what was right, and his friends didn't."
But both of them attributed Job's sufferings to God! So they couldn't have been one of them wrong, and one of them right, on this point...
Bryan said...
It doesn't seem like it's just that he was innocent becuz of course he's going to know that he's innocent more than they would (and also more tenacious in defending it).
Yes, he would be a better expert at his conduct than they would have been. But still, I think that can be the crucial point that Job got right, though he went farther, and implied that God was wrong somehow, which I think was what God rebuked him for...
Lee and Bryan said...
Lee: But Jee is correct, I am a (four-point) Calvinist-person
Bryan: Which point to you leave out?
I leave off limited atonement, and believe we may even hope for all to be saved.
Bryan said...
How did you end up here?
I can't say "God wants all people to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) means everyone without distinction, instead of without exception. That was the verse that steered me away from saying "God loved the world" means the world of the elect, or that "Repent and live!" is addressed only to them, or is a command with a purpose other than the stated one.
A.C. Clifford said...
Commenting on John 1:29, [Bishop J.C. Ryle] wrote that 'Christ's death is profitable to none but to the elect who believe on His name...But...I dare not say that no atonement has been made, in any sense, except for the elect...When I read that the wicked who are lost, "deny the Lord that bought them," (2 Pet. 2:1) and that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," (2 Cor. 5:19), I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man.' Commenting on John 3:16 and appealing to Bishop Davenant, Calvin and others, he concludes: 'Those who confine God's love exclusively to the elect appear to me to take a narrow and contracted view of God's character and attributes...'
A.C. Clifford
Bryan said...
Despite your admitted aversion to the OV itself, what do you think of the exegesis done by Boyd, et al.
Well, I think the passages where God seems to change his mind are from our perspective, and that God indeed knows all the future, glad to discuss this further, too...
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 1/20/2005 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Lee
Hmm.
By how did you get here? I was referring to this webboard. Like I said, most people that don't agree with the OV don't stay and I was just wondering why you do and how you got here in the first place.
From our perspective? I assume your about to get anthropmorphic, but that's just a guess based on general experience. What precisely do you mean?
Bryan Post Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 1/20/2005 11:22:12 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/20/2005 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hey, Laika!
Thanks for posting. I thought it was going to end up being only Lee and myself discussing this thing. Plus I get the dog on my thread now.
No, I haven't read it, but I have that book. I'm about 1/3 of the way through. I really like it, but some of the Romans 9 stuff was really hard to grasp.
Thanks, I'll look at that.
Bryan | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/20/2005 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Bryan McCarthy said...
This verse says that Job's brothers and sisters came to comfort him
"for all of the evil/disaster that the lord had brought upon him" (ESV)
I thought that Satan had brought the disaster upon him (2.7), but then
the author of this book doesn't seem to mind Job's assertion that God
bestows both good and evil (2.9-10, 1.20-22). These verses in chapter
2 where the author says "Job did not sin with his lips" "or charge god with
wrong" despite his fallacious statements that man sometimes receives evil from God
would have been the perfect time to be clearer about Job's error.
Can anyone makes sense of these four citations for me?
Hi Bryan,
Been studying this a bit, and I'm still not completely satisfied with this answer, but it seems to me that we must take each statement in its proper context, and also in the broader context of the entire book. When Job ascribes everything to God, that's Job's point of view, so that doesn't seem to pose a problem for the Open View necessarily. The prologue of the book seems to give the REAL nature of the conflict. It seems possible that what we have in 42:11 is the opinion of the brothers and sisters, and not necessarily the whole truth of the matter (which is revealed in the prologue).
I'll have to do some more studying on the "Job didn't sin with his lips or charge God with wrong" thing.
Blessings,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/20/2005 11:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Bryan said...
... how did you get here? I was referring to this webboard.
I see! I don't remember, precisely, I think it was because I read about Open Theism in Christianity Today, and went fishing on the web, and jumped right in. I stay because I have a Don Quixote complex.
Bryan said...
From our perspective? I assume your about to get anthropomorphic...
Not exactly! I mean like this:
Genesis 2:19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.
Now this might mean God didn't know what Adam would choose. But let's continue!
Genesis 2:20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
Now I don't think anyone will say here that God didn't know that there was no suitable helper, until he went through all the creatures. Thus I expect that here, and in the previous verse, the uncertainty is from Adam's perspective, not God's.
And this, I think, is not an anthropomorphism, it's instead similar to asking a child, "Now where should we put this spoon?" Though you know where it goes on the table, and the child knows you know that, as well...
John said...
When Job ascribes everything to God, that's Job's point of view, so that doesn't seem to pose a problem for the Open View necessarily.
Well, then we have to say that God did not realize what this might lead to, when he contemplated asking Satan to consider Job. I think he did know that, though!
John said...
It seems possible that what we have in 42:11 is the opinion of the brothers and sisters, and not necessarily the whole truth of the matter (which is revealed in the prologue).
Well, what about these statements?
Job 42:9 the Lord accepted Job's prayer.
Job 42:10 the Lord made him prosperous again.
Are these his friend's opinions, too? I don't think so, and similarly, in verse 11...
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) : 1/21/2005 10:23:58 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/21/2005 12:06 AM (GMT -6) | | John said: When Job ascribes everything to God, that's Job's point of view, so that doesn't seem to pose a problem for the Open View necessarily.
Lee said:
Well, then we have to say that God did not realize what this might lead to, when he contemplated asking Satan to consider Job. I think he did know that, though!
John responds: Ummm...I see God's faith in Job clearly stated in the prologue. In the narrative, especially the prologue, I don't see God ever wondering whether Job had what it would take to endure this trial.
From John's earlier post: It seems possible that what we have in 42:11 is the opinion of the brothers and sisters, and not necessarily the whole truth of the matter (which is revealed in the prologue).
Lee responded: Well, what about these statements?
Job 42:9 the Lord accepted Job's prayer.
Job 42:10 the Lord made him prosperous again.
Are these his friend's opinions, too?
John responds: Not necessarily. They could simply be the narrator's opinion, though. The genre is epic poetry. It is almost always the case in this type of story that the narrator has a particular point or moral he's trying to make with the story. At the very least, I think we must conclude that the story is to a certain extent equivocal wrt to issue of who brought these things upon Job. If we take 42:11 as giving the "real" truth of the matter, then we are calling into question the veracity of the prologue. Post Edited (JEE) : 1/20/2005 11:10:36 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
John said...
I see God's faith in Job clearly stated in the prologue. In the narrative, especially the prologue, I don't see God ever wondering whether Job had what it would take to endure this trial.
I agree! And also God saw the result of asking Satan the initial question, too, thus he was indeed ultimately responsible for what happened to Job.
Lee and John said...
Job 42:9 the Lord accepted Job's prayer.
Job 42:10 the Lord made him prosperous again.
Are these his friend's opinions, too?
John: Not necessarily. They could simply be the narrator's opinion, though.
I don't think "The Lord accepted Job's prayer" will do as just the narrator's opinion, though. Nor "The Lord made him prosperous again," we may refer to James' summary of these events:
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.
Not what Job, or his friends, or the narrator though the Lord brought about!
John said...
The genre is epic poetry. It is almost always the case in this type of story that the narrator has a particular point or moral he's trying to make with the story.
Yes, and it does seem that one main point is that God is in control, even of disastrous circumstances, at least in the case of what happened to Job.
Then we may ask if this point is correct! And I think we may see that this is God's opinion, and not just a human one:
James 5:11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered.
Not just noble! Blessed: a good outcome, which God certainly must have intended.
John said...
At the very least, I think we must conclude that the story is to a certain extent equivocal wrt to issue of who brought these things upon Job.
I don't think the story is at all equivocal, though! Job and his friends are all unanimous that it was God who brought this trouble on him, and never waver on this point. And God does not rebuke him or them! God's rebuke is that Job is justifying himself, and implying that God was being unjust.
John said...
If we take 42:11 as giving the "real" truth of the matter, then we are calling into question the veracity of the prologue.
Yes, the devil was involved, but at God's initiative, and under his control, and God is said, in the prologue, to be the one clearly responsible:
Job 1:21 "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away..."
Job 2:10 "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
In the prologue/introduction to the story, it is clearly and directly revealed that it was Satan who afflicted Job, and only because God allowed him to do so, and only because God had such great faith in Job.
To attribute all evil ultimately to God makes God worse than the Devil.
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/22/2005 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
JEE said...
John: In the prologue/introduction to the story, it is clearly and directly revealed that it was Satan who afflicted Job...
But how about this verse, though?
Job 2:3 And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.
JEE said...
... and only because God allowed him to do so, and only because God had such great faith in Job.
I agree, I would even say that God knew how Job would respond, and I agree he allowed this, and removed the hedge, and would also add that he remained in complete control.
JEE said...
To attribute all evil ultimately to God makes God worse than the Devil.
Then we must say that the narrator was wrong when we read "Job did not sin in what he said," when what Job said is just this: "The Lord took away."
Job 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"
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!
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 1/22/2005 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, some of what you guys have written I didn't QUITE get, I'm going to interact with some of it soon. I would say in general, I agree with John an little more (this should not be surprising, given the fact that we're already in agreement on some of the finer theological points), but I need to look at some of this a little more.
Thanks guys. I'll be back later. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/24/2005 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Lee Merrill said...
But how about this verse, though?
Job 2:3 And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.
John responds:
So in your view "incite" means "cause?" Are you really willing to say that Satan "made" God do this?
The American Heritage Dictionary definite "incite" as: "To provoke and urge on."
BDBG Hebrew Lexicon defines the Hebrew word as:
to incite, allure, instigate, entice
(Hiphil)
- to incite (to a request)
- to allure, lure
- to instigate (bad sense)
JEE said...
To attribute all evil ultimately to God makes God worse than the Devil.
Then we must say that the narrator was wrong when we read "Job did not sin in what he said," when what Job said is just this: "The Lord took away."
John replies: One can be be mistaken without sinning, especially with regard to the nature of God.
Job 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"
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!
"The whole account" is epic poetry. As such, it never was meant to be interpreted in a literalistic, wooden fashion.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/24/2005 6:52:50 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/26/2005 12:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
John and Lee said...
John: In the prologue/introduction to the story, it is clearly and directly revealed that it was Satan who afflicted Job...
Lee: But how about this verse, though?
Job 2:3 And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.
John: So in your view "incite" means "cause?" Are you really willing to say that Satan "made" God do this?
No, but certainly the devil was trying to get God to act here. Now let's say he didn't succeed! Then we have the devil acting to ruin Job, instead. Then why didn't the devil just do this without trying to incite God? We could say the devil had to have God remove the hedge first. But then why would God call the devil asking for the hedge to be removed, inciting God to ruin Job?
I think there is an implication here that God is taking responsibility.
John and Lee said...
John: To attribute all evil ultimately to God makes God worse than the Devil.
Lee: Then we must say that the narrator was wrong when we read "Job did not sin in what he said," when what Job said is just this: "The Lord took away."
John: One can be be mistaken without sinning, especially with regard to the nature of God.
Then this puts all the narrator's comments in this book up for evaluation. All narrator's comments in the whole Bible?! I don't think that will do...
John and Lee said...
ob 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.
Well, was the narrator right or wrong here also, though? That's what I do insist on knowing...
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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/26/2005 12:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee said: I think there is an implication here that God is taking responsibility.
John responds: It seems clear that God allowed Satan to "sift" Job (kind of like Satan desired to have Peter, to sift him).
One can be be mistaken without sinning, especially with regard to the nature of God.
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 replies: 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?
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.
Well, was the narrator right or wrong here also, though? That's what I do insist on knowing...
"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.
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. 
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/25/2005 11:16:12 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/26/2005 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Okay, I'm Baaaaaaack!
Hey, John and Lee
Regarding John's comments that one can be mistaken without sinning: I thought that too when I read those verses. Look at it this way, Lee. Let's say that you and some of the other guys here are right and the rest of us are wrong, i.e. the future does, in fact, exist in entirety. This would mean that we have a wrong concept of god/the nature of reality. or let's say we're right and you guys are out of sync. that means you have a wrong concept of god/reality. Does this scenario mean that one of us is sinning by having an incorrect understanding of god/reality? is it true that in every disagreement about the nature of god/reality that one party is sinning regarless of presentation simply by virtue of being wrong while the other remains correct and thus righteous? do you see what i'm saying? the only point that john is trying to make is that since you can be wrong in thinking without it constituting sin, it is not a good argument to say that the narrator's assertion that job did not sin by saying god brought the evil proves job was right. Did I represent you correctly here, john?
next point: it also says he did not charge god with wrong. i think all this part means is that he hadn't challenged him (saying god was wrong to bring the affliction becuz he's innocent) so far, which he 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.
third point: 2.3 - "...he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason." okay, we're assuming that this means "...you urged ("incited") me against him [for me] to destroy him..." in the english language, at least, the word "to" can mean "in the direction of/towards" (this is the way we're using it here -- "you incited me towards destroying him") or it can mean "for the purpose of" (which i'm going to implement in a second here). Isn't it possible that rather than "you urged me towards destroying him" 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 would attribute the affliction to satan while still attributing to god the right amount of involvement to be faithful to the prologue. just a thought. anybody know hebrew enough to say which way or ways the passage can be read?
fourth point: 42.11 says the bros and sisters came and comforted him and gave him sympathy for all the evil/disaster god brought on him. sure, that's why they were giving him the sympathy, etc. they were probably even saying it -- "oh we would feel upset if god took everything away from us too; god sure is a tough guy sometimes, blah, blah, etc." they of course are not privy to the prologue like us (and the narrator, obviously). 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 (unlike his commenting regarding job in the beginning of the book and regarding elihu in the middle)?
fifth point: 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. what i find interesting is that god did not correct job. lee will probably argue that this is becuz it is true, but i would suggest here that it is becuz it does not hinder job's devotion to god, which is what has been in jeopardy the entire book, to continue believing it. in fact, i can't really see anywhere in job that the lord corrects him on any thinking which doesn't hinder his devotion to god. this, i submit, is one of those things. this also has the bonus of explaining why god doesn't sort out many of our theological messes in this age -- it's not affecting devotion to god.
jefscott, to answer your question of what it was that job did wrong other than not properly justifying god, basically i'd say it's that he went farther than that. he challenged god -- he stayed true; he didn't leave him for some other god, but he called him on the carpet for afflicting an innocent man. yes, job was innocent, but the problem was -- SO WAS GOD! and job was so concerned with proving his own innocence and ending the affliction that he was willing to sacrifice god's innocence, i.e. to make god guilty, in the process.
let me know what you guys think of these thoughts.
bryan
post script:
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.
if by this, you mean becuz of their typical "it's a mystery/who are you to ask questions" type answers, while at this point you are arguing that since job is epic poetry is supposed to be a bit murky rather than dilineated, then yes. it is kind of ironic.
("dontchya think?" ...eulll bad nineties flashback  )Post Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 1/30/2005 4:53:49 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:57 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 |
|
|