 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 12/30/2003 4:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | I have been reading Dr. Boyd's book, Is God to Blame? and eagerly got to the chapter about the book of Job. Unfortunately, like every other commentary that I have read about Job, one question is still unanswered. I would love input on this.
I wonder about Job's first children that were killed by satan. I first of all have a problem with God using Job's life as a gamble with satan. Will Job remain faithful or not? Why does God feel it was necessary to prove any point to satan? Why not just tell him to stuff it?
But once he agreed to put Job to the test, he told satan that he could inflict any damage he wanted to, as long as he did not touch Job's person. Satan took him at his word and destroyed property (I have no problem with that) possessions (I have no problem with that), but why would God not protect Job's sons? I have serious problems with that.
Then when I point this out to people, they state that in the end Job is abundantly restored of all that he has lost, including more kids. I have three kids, if they were all destroyed, six kids is not going to soothe the loss of the three.
I cannot reconcile this lack of protection for Job's children with a so-called loving God.
Thanks for your input.
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 12/30/2003 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I wonder about Job's first children that were killed by satan. I first of all have a problem with God using Job's life as a gamble with satan. Will Job remain faithful or not? Why does God feel it was necessary to prove any point to satan? Why not just tell him to stuff it?
But once he agreed to put Job to the test, he told satan that he could inflict any damage he wanted to, as long as he did not touch Job's person. Satan took him at his word and destroyed property (I have no problem with that) possessions (I have no problem with that), but why would God not protect Job's sons? I have serious problems with that.
Does it matter whether the Book of Job is literal history vs. poetic? Seems to me it is one thing to say that this conversation between God and Satan is part of a story, i.e., a literary devise at the beginning of the story to set up the unfolding of the play with all its characters, etc., and it is something else altogether to say that God literally had this conversation with Satan.
If its poetry, we need to distinguish between the literary devises and the meaning, no?
Perhaps the dialogue at the beginning of the story is intended mostly to set up (in the context of the story) the dialogue at the end of the story, where the primary meaning is found.
Does the story read more like history or more like a play?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 12/30/2003 5:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Jet, I am not certain that we can pick and choose what is fact and fiction in the Bible. I think that there is a danger in that of picking and choosing things that fit our own perspectives. Somehow I think that the Bible needs to be taken as a whole.
Laika, I can understand that God would not want to be loved for what He could give us. I can even see Him agreeing to test Job to see if the love is deeper than material possessions. It is the children that get to me. Seems a bit extreme to allow satan to kill the children. Probably Job's wife was spared because she too was encouraging Job to curse God and die.
Trying to fathom this freedom to choose makes things so tough. I know that we are not aware of all the intricacies in creation, how all things work together, but somehow I would love to experience this kinder, gentler, loving God that people seem to believe exists.
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/30/2003 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | wondering-
Here are some interesting discussions about Job that we’ve had. The last one pretty cool.
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1527
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2891
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1030
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1506 | | Back to Top | | |
|
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 12/31/2003 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear TGB, thanks for the other references to Job, I have been reading and getting a lot from them. Glad to know that I was not the only one who was disturbed about some of the things that happened in Job. Still not happy with all of the answers though.
I have to take your word on the epic poem concept for Job.
There are still a lot of things that I need to sort out regarding this stuff.
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
|
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 12/31/2003 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry to add something before even having a reply. But I was reading IS GOD TO BLAME and Greg Boyd said something that kind of set my hackles up. Am looking for input.
On Pp. 91 he says "True, God entered into the wager with the satan and allowed him to afflict Job in order to answer the satan's assault on his integrity. In this sense he brought Job's troubles on him. But he did not himself plan or cause these afflictions, as Job later alleges."
My confusion with this is that in the first place, why does God feel so insecure that He even has to answer satan's challenge? In my head that is very similar to what Eve did when satan asked her a question that ended up changing the very nature of the world. Why did God need to prove himself to satan? Yes God DID bring Job's troubles on him, whether it is by pointing out Job to satan or by doing nothing. Yes, maybe God did not inflict Job with the afflictions, but God most certainly did not protect Job. To me it seems that God might be guilty of a sin of omission, not a sin of comission.
I know that, from reading your posts, many of you are very grounded in faith. I angrily pew sat for 10 years before I finally Got saved, and that was after 30 years of many alternate religions that God says we should be stoned for worshipping in. It is only in the past two years that I have had anything of real substance with God, and I truthfully have been devouring the Word, seeking out answers to questions.
But my faith is not that strong right now, and when I read things that trouble me it makes it difficult to build more trust towards God. The book of Lamentations is another one of those books which is troubling.
Anyhow, thanks for your responses, truthfully they are helping me to sort this out. But I cannot grasp the first two chapters of Job.
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 12/31/2003 8:38 PM (GMT -6) | | wondering04
On Pp. 91 he says "True, God entered into the wager with the satan and allowed him to afflict Job in order to answer the satan's assault on his integrity. In this sense he brought Job's troubles on him. But he did not himself plan or cause these afflictions, as Job later alleges."
My confusion with this is that in the first place, why does God feel so insecure that He even has to answer satan's challenge?
Iconoclast
Good point wondering. I absolutely cannot make any sense of why God would feel a need to have to answer the satan’s (the adversary’s) challenge. If this is what is really going on behind the scenes then we are simply pawns in a greater game. We are not God’s beloved children and we are caught in a terrible contradiction. I agree with Doc that the prologue to Job is about letting us know that there IS something deeper going on but I do not see the whole God against some evil being called Satan in a cosmic warfare approach as being able to reconcile the contradiction between God loving us and still allowing terrible things to happen to us. Doc does do a great job at getting more at the heart of the matter in his book “Satan and the Problem of Evil.” I would highly recommend this book. The core issue that Doc lays out is that God wants to create beings who actually become loving beings and that since love must be chosen God gives us the free will to choose and the epistemic distance (an appropriate separation from God) where we can actually choose.
In my opinion Meir Weiss has the best interpretation I have seen regarding the prologue to Job.
From the “Land of Uz” post that I wrote some time back:
>>>>>>
As much as I would like to I won’t go into the full analysis but I will say that a key component was the determination of the meaning and role of “ha-satan” (the adversary) in the text. The author’s conclusion is that “ha-satan” is a rhetorical device used by the author in order to NOT ascribe doubt to an all-knowing God. He argues that this is similar to Zachariah where “ha-satan” is used to show God as only being an agent of mercy versus “ha-satan” being focused on justice like a prosecuting attorney. Again, a rhetorical device related to theological concerns.
<<<<<<<
The basic concept to Weiss’ interpretation is that “ha-satan” is simply a rhetorical device used to express the fundamental doubt that exists within God regarding what we will choose. Will we choose to truly love for the sake of another or is our “love” just the “love” of a dog for its master.
The way Weiss is suggesting that we interpret the prologue is NOT that God really doubts that we love Him (He knows exactly where we stand) but rather that God KNOWS that in order for us to be able to truly choose love and thus become loving beings it is necessary for Him to create a world in which true doubt as to the ultimate outcome of this question can come into being. If God created a world where nothing bad ever happened to anyone no matter what choices we made then clearly there is no doubt as to whether we can truly choose to love for the sake of another – we could not - we could only choose to love like a dog loves its master. The only way to introduce true doubt into the equation is to introduce true choices by creating a world where there is epistemic distance from God – where we don’t really know what is going on behind the scenes and thus our choice to love for the sake of another is a true choice.
wondering04
In my head that is very similar to what Eve did when satan asked her a question that ended up changing the very nature of the world. Why did God need to prove himself to satan? Yes God DID bring Job's troubles on him, whether it is by pointing out Job to satan or by doing nothing. Yes, maybe God did not inflict Job with the afflictions, but God most certainly did not protect Job. To me it seems that God might be guilty of a sin of omission, not a sin of comission.
Iconoclast
God did indeed bring Job’s troubles on him in the sense that God created a world in which troubles and terrible things befall us all. The only way in my mind to reconcile this is that it MUST be fundamentally necessary in order for us to have a true choice to love and therefore a true opportunity to become one with God - else we are pawns in a deeper game and are not really beloved children. I think the bible is clear that we are God’s beloved children – we are not pawns in some deeper game – it is just that if God suddenly dwelled full-force within our being we would no longer have a true ability to choose against Him and thus we wouldn’t have a true ability to choose for Him.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/1/2004 1:13 AM (GMT -6) | | wondering04: On Pp. 91 he says "True, God entered into the wager with the satan and allowed him to afflict Job in order to answer the satan's assault on his integrity. In this sense he brought Job's troubles on him. But he did not himself plan or cause these afflictions, as Job later alleges."
My confusion with this is that in the first place, why does God feel so insecure that He even has to answer satan's challenge?
Tom: It does seem like Satan is here doing to God exactly what he did to Eve in the garden, that is, planting doubt in God's mind regarding his own identity and purposes, getting God to act on Satan's grounds and worldview. And it seems too that if God takes up this challenge that he is giving in to Satan and failing just as Eve did.
Iconoclast’s view with Weiss avoids this, but at the price of having to altogether abandon belief in a personal being ‘Satan’ and personal angelic beings as well. God and we humans are all that’s involved. We’re the only personal beings in the universe. I can’t go this route yet, but I still like French wine. 
I think if you take Doc’s view that given the self-imposed constraints on the exercise of his power required by the purposes for which he created in the first place, God always does the most God can do to minimize evil and maximize good (“good” not defined as MY good, that is, MY comfort, MY wishes, etc.) then you have to believe that the evil of God’s NOT engaging in this wager with Satan was greater than the evil of engaging in the wager, that what happened to Job and his family was LESS evil that what would have happened had God not engaged Satan in this wager. What might THAT greater evil be? We are not told, but it centers on God’s purposes, providence, and integrity being at stake not in God’s mind (which is where it would have to be for the parallel with Eve to work) but in the minds and hearts of the angelic hosts. It’s not God who is insecure and who needs to fill some personal need for security. Rather, if we stick with locating the reason for God’s decision to engage Satan at all in the complexity of creation and thus in the possible evil that might arise if the wager is NOT engaged in and God’s integrity is NOT declared, we have enough of an explanation to hold that the evil of not engaging in the wager was greater than the evil of engaging in it.
Now, our mistake is in thinking the prologue is designed to exhaustively explain in detail to readers the complexity of creation on this particular occasion that makes God’s engaging Satan a better, more loving, more wise decision than ignoring him on this particular occasion. But the prologue doesn’t do that. It more or less describes the contours of the fact and moves on, leaving us in a better position than Job to be sure, but still not where WE would like to be. When all is said and done, even WITH the prologue, WE also like Job must choose to TRUST God on this particular occasion without having all the answers.
I think our problem with the book of Job is that we look for an interpretation of the prologue that relieves us of the need to trust God by granting us the same detailed understanding of the complexities surrounding God’s choices that God herself has. But we can’t and won’t ever have that, not even when we’re glorified in heaven (see Rev. 6.10 where even in heaven those who suffered in this life still don’t have answers; they still cry out ‘How long, O Lord?’).
As I remember, some on this site have objected to locating the mystery in the complexity of creation for this very reason--it doesn't uncover the specifics of the compexity, it doesn't tell us what particular complexity renders a particular evil 'unpreventable' for God, it leaves us STILL needing and having to trust God. But I ask, what's wrong with that? And how does not possessing detailed knowledge of the particular complexities argue against there being any such complexities? It doesn't. Trust is God’s way. If I can’t live with not having all the answers and needing to trust in the crucified God then I won’t enjoy heaven very much, because not having all the answers and needing to trust will be the case for us throughout eternity. I hope we're not looking forward to riding ourselves of this state of affairs 'cause it ain't going away. We'll never be rid of our finiteness and so never be rid of our incomplete understanding of reality and thus our need to trust God. But we will always have what finite beings like us DO need and CAN have, namely, enough of an explanation to make trusting God not only possible, but the best and wisest possible decision one can make.
Doc, my twin, does this gel with you?
So, wondering, I for example have to ask myself: In light of the absue that I experienced as a young boy, is there any reason for me to believe an all-powerful, all-loving God did all he possibly could to prevent the evil that invaded my life? I say yes. The greatest reason I have for answering yes is this same God hung on a cross for me. He bore the responsibility for creating the sort of world in which young children were and are abused. He bore it all. So am I really "trusting" in the personal sense if I then further demand of this crucified suffering God a fuller accounting of all the complexities (divine, creational, whatever) that surrounded my (or anyone's) particular suffering? What do I hope more "information" of this sort will do more for me that the cross cannot do for me? Moreover, what becomes of the cross when I have ALL the inside information regarding the complexities surrounding my suffering or even the occurence of all evil in the world?
Sometimes I think my drive to want to know more of the "info" about the particular "why's" (i.e., the particular complexities that explain the occurence of some evil) betrays a lack of understanding of and appreciation for the cross. Now I hope I am at, or am getting to, the place where the cross is enough of an explanation of the mere fact that there are complexities to the divine-human-angelic interrelatedness that I'll never understand but that I have more than enough reason for concluding that God is always lovingly for me, always lovingly with me, always lovingly doing all he can to maximize good and minimize evil (even when children are being abused). I honestly think that even IF we had the inside exhaustive scoop on the complexities and reasons behind suffering and evil, we wouldn't be healed of it. Understanding is not the cure-all. It's part, yes. There is a critical mass of understanding that IS helpful. But only the cross can heal us of evil and bring us into a personal experience of intimacy and joy with God. And so long as we're not enjoying the fullness of God's presence, wondering, perhaps we need to consider more the Cross; the sort of God, the sort of loving God, that would climb up on it for us.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/1/2004 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | JOB: THE HARDEST QUESTlON
by Ray C. Stedman
The gripping and challenging book of Job is perhaps one of the most fascinating books of the Old Testament, and it begins a new division in the scriptures. The books from Genesis to Esther are all narrative books, and are vitally meaningful to us as living parables, as types worked out in actual history by which we can see what is going on in our own lives.
Job begins another section---the poetical books of the Bible---, which also includes Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the little book of Lamentations, tucked in behind Jeremiah. Job is a great poem. Some have said that it is perhaps even the greatest poem in all literature. Perhaps nothing that Shakespeare has written exceeds this book in beauty of expression. It is admired everywhere as one of the most beautiful writings that man has ever known. But it is more than an expressive, dramatic writing; it has a very great message, as we shall see.
It is a drama, an epic drama much like The Iliad and The Odyssey, the poems by Homer from the Greek world. But the book of Job is also history. Job was an actual, living person and these events actually took place, but God recounts them for us in this beautiful style so that we might have an answer to the age-old, haunting question, "Why does apparently senseless tragedy strike men?" Any time you get into difficulties it is well to turn to the book of Job. Here is a man who experienced an agony of human despair and desolation of spirit which accompanied the apparently meaningless, senseless tragedies that came into his life.
Now, the ultimate answer to that question is given right at the beginning of the book. At the opening we are handed certain program notes that explain to us something about the drama, something which even the actors themselves are not permitted to know. The answer given is that senseless suffering arises out of Satan's continual challenge to the government of God.
So, as the book opens, we find God meeting with the angelic creation. Among them is Satan, who strides in sneering and swaggering, convinced that self-interest is the only real motive for human behavior. Satan's philosophy is that the question "What's in it for me?" is the only accurate explanation for why people do anything.
And here, in the presence of God, he asserts that anyone who claims that human beings act from any other motive is simply a religious phony; furthermore, he claims he can prove it. God says, rather patiently, "All right, we'll test your theory." Then he selects the man Job to be the proving ground.
In World War II at the opening of the war between Japan and the United States, it looked as though this conflict would be staged in the Pacific Ocean---very likely the islands of Hawaii, for the battle began at Pearl Harbor. But very early in the war, as you will remember, events took a sudden startling turn and without a word of warning the whole theater of battle shifted abruptly to the South Pacific. For the first time, Americans began to hear of strange names of islands, like "Guadalcanal" and others, there, in those quiet, obscure, out-of-the way corners of the earth, the greatest powers on earth were locked in mortal combat. The islands became the battleground for the great fight between empires.
And something like this happened in the story of Job. Here is a man going about his private affairs, unaware that he has suddenly become the center of God's attention. For the time being all of God's activity has focused upon him, and he has become the battleground for a conflict between God and Satan in which God is planning to pull the rug out from under Satan, and to reveal him as the phony that he is. Job is that battleground, and Satan immediately moves in with shock troops.
In chapter 1 we read that, one by one, the props are pulled out of Job's life. It is though, some Western Union telegram boy who delivers a series of messages to Job about terrible catastrophes. Hard on the heels of the first comes another one, and the messages keep coming in. First, all Job's oxen have been taken by enemy raids, and then all his asses have been decimated. Next, word comes that his sheep have been killed by a terrible electric storm, and crowding in after that is the news that his great herd of camels, true wealth in the oriental world, has been wiped out in a natural catastrophe. Then comes the heartrending news that his seven sons and three daughters were together in one home enjoying a birthday celebration when a great tornado hit and the house was demolished. All of his children were killed in one fatal blow.
Job takes it all in stride. At the end of chapter 1 his response to this terrible series of tragic, senseless accidents is:
"Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return; the LORD gives, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21)
I wonder if we would have responded that way? Satan is somewhat taken aback, so he asks God to change the rules of the game. Satan has decided to attack Job more directly and petitions God for the right to strike Job's own body. This God grants. Without warning, Job is suddenly stricken with a series of terrible boils, or carbuncles.
There was a time in my life, during a period of about a year and a half, when I had some twenty-five boils on my body, though no more than two or three at one time. Since then I have had a deep sympathy for dear old Job. There is nothing more aggravating than a painful boil which is not relieved by any kind of medication. You can only grit your teeth and endure agony until the boil comes to a head, and heals itself.
Consider how Job is stricken from the top of his head to the sole of his foot. He hardly knows what to do, but is determined to wait it out. As the malady continues, his wife is the one whose faith succumbs. She turns on him and says, "Are you still holding fast to your integrity? Why don't you curse God and die?" Job has to stand alone, but he is determined to be faithful. Then comes the final test, when he receives a visit from three of his friends.
At this point the whole book slightly shifts its focus. We now are no longer looking only at Job but also at his controversy with these three friends, and their discourse occupies the major part of the book. From their human (very human) point of view, they attempt to answer that same haunting question, "Why do senseless tragedies afflict men?" The major part of the book, written in beautifully poetic language, records the attempts by these men to come to an answer. And the three friends' answers are all the same. They answer the question of Job's problems with smug, dogmatic assurances that only one explanation is possible: he has committed some awful sin. They try to break down Job's defenses with arguments.
Now, they are not necessarily wrong in their explanation. There are tragic events---catastrophes, heartache, pain, and suffering---which do occur because of sin. Any time that we violate the laws of God's universe, including the laws of health, there is an immediate and sometimes violent physical reaction and much suffering comes from that. But the problem in his friends' arguments---and their evil---lay in their dogmatic assertion that this is the only explanation possible for all kinds of suffering.
They each take three rounds with Job. Each of them presents three arguments, nine arguments in all, and each plays the same tune. They try various approaches. First they try sarcasm and irony. Then they appeal to Job's honesty. Then they accuse him of specific crimes and misdeeds. Finally they act hurt and go away, miffed and sulking, prideful, appealing to Job' s conscience not to insult them any more. All the time they are attacking his integrity with the argument that if God is indeed just, then the righteous are always blessed and the wicked always suffer; therefore, if an individual is suffering, it must be because there is something wrong in his life. This is their argument. To these men, the explanation is a simple matter of cause and effect and is quite logical. It is neat and tidy and explains everything---that is, unless you happen to be the sufferer.
At first Job is slightly irritated with these friends. But then he becomes angry and, finally, sarcastic. In the opening lines of his reply, he delivers a cutting piece of irony: "I am sure you alone are the people and wisdom is going to die with you." (Job 12:2) "You've got all the answers, you've solved all the problems, you know everything. So there's no use talking to you any longer!" With bitter sarcasm he replies that their explanation of his suffering is in error. Resentful, he openly entreats them to understand. He says he can't confess sin because he is genuinely unaware of anything he has done that has offended God. Moreover, he can't believe in justice any longer because their arguments that the wicked always suffer simply are not true. He points out that many people who are very wicked, notoriously wicked, are prospering and flourishing and living in ease, and nothing horrible is happening to them.
Furthermore, he says, he doesn't know what to do because God won't listen to him; he doesn't even have a chance to plead his case before God, and he complains that God hides from him and cannot be found. Eventually Job actually shouts at these friends in the turmoil of his confusion, bewilderment, anger, hurt, and frustration. He says he is afraid of this God, who is not the God he has known. He doesn't know what has happened to this dear old friend whom he could always rely upon. Job has taken a strange turn in his attitude now that these awful things are happening to him. He is uncertain what to think or say.
The glorious thing about this dear man is that throughout the whole book he is utterly and completely honest. Confused and bewildered and puzzled by what is happening, he simply blurts out his thoughts. He refuses to admit things that he cannot accept: "All these pat answers don't help at all!" In his desolation he expresses in various ways the ultimate cry of the human spirit. Some wonderful verses emerge from this discourse by Job. Stripped as he is to his very soul, he cries out again and again with some of the deepest expressions of the human heart. In chapter 9 he says of God,
For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together.
In Hebrew, his words are literally,
Would that there were an umpire between us, oh that there were a daysman, a mediator between us who might lay his hand upon us both. (Job 9:32, 33)
That is the cry of a heart that recognizes that God is higher and greater and richer and holier than man, and man can't reach him. It is the cry for a mediator to come between them.
Then in chapter 14 comes another expression out of this man's faithful heart:
If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come. (Job 14:14)
"If I knew that after I die I would live again, I would gladly wait until that time to argue my case before God!" "If a man die, shall he live again?" This great cry---the question uttered by so many---wells up from the depths of this man's desolation and suffering.
Then in chapter 16 Job cries out,
Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high. (Job 16:19)
Earlier he had cried out for a mediator: "Oh, that I might have somebody step in between me and God." Now at last, born of his desperation, "I realize now that the only one who can adequately argue my case for me is God himself. If any cause of mine is going to be fairly presented before God, God himself has to do it."
In chapter 19 comes another distressed cry, in which he sounds this note of awful intensity:
"Oh that my words were written! Oh that they were inscribed in a book! Oh, that with an iron pen and lead they were graven in the rock for ever!" (Job 19:23, 24)
That prayer was fulfilled in this record, the book of Job. Then, at last, a ray of light shines in his darkness:
"For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh ["in my flesh," in the Hebrew] I shall see God." (Job 19:25, 26)
Out of the dark, deep distress of this man come these cries, which find their fulfillment in the coming of Jesus Christ. He came to be mediator. He came to give assurance that man shall live again. He came to stand between man and God. He came to stand in the flesh upon the earth that man might see him face-to-face.
Now comes the final blow to Job, after all these so-called friends have had their chance with him and have tried to beat him down their arguments pounding him again and again like a club. Poor Job---bruised, defeated, puzzled, bewildered, and confused---now meets with a young man who happened to be standing there all along but who is only now interjected into the picture. His name is Elihu. Speaking for youth, he stands up to say, "You are all wrong. You friends of Job are wrong because you accuse him unjustly, and Job is wrong because he blames God for his difficulty. He is accusing God in order to exonerate himself." Elihu points out the weaknesses in both arguments but still offers nothing positive to answer the question of Job's misery.
But suddenly the Lord himself answers Job. In a whirlwind's fury he comes to him and says, "Do you want to debate, Job? You have been saying that you want some answers to your questions and that I have been hiding and I am not willing to debate with you. Do you want to debate your case? All right. First, let me see your qualifications. I have a list here of forty questions I would like to ask you, to see if you are competent to understand problems. These are very simple problems, very simple questions, and if you are able to handle these ABC's, then perhaps you are able to debate with me the questions you have in your heart."
Then, in chapters 38 through 40, you have one of the most remarkable passages in the entire Bible. God takes Job on a tour of nature and asks him question after question about Job's ability to deal with this kind of thing or that kind of thing in nature. Gradually these three chapters draw the picture of a vastly complicated, intricately intertwined universe for which is required a tremendous superhuman mind to direct all these activities, to keep life in balance and to answer all the questions that the Lord is asking Job to answer.
At the end of this overwhelming display of the wisdom of God, Job falls down on his face and says:
I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:5, 6)
God's essential argument is that life is too complicated for simple answers. If you are demanding that God come up with simple answers to these deep and complicated problems, you are asking him to do more than you are able to understand. He is simply saying that only God can adequately deal with the answers to these kinds of questions. Therefore, man must take the position of trusting him---not arguing with him. God has displayed in the most amazing way his ability to work out complicated situations while keeping human life and the life of the entire world---with all their tremendously involved complexities---in beautiful balance. Now if you really see that, then you must trust God to work out these complicated problems of life.
Job, overwhelmed by the vast might and wisdom and majesty of God, falls on his face, repents, and learns the lesson that God wants him to learn. Only God has the right to use men for whatever purpose he desires. In other words, God does not exist for man but man exists for God. God is not a glorified bell-boy at whom we can snap our fingers and have him run up asking, "May I take your order?" We exist for him.
We are God's instruments for the working out of his purposes, some of which are so vastly complicated they are quite beyond our ability to understand. There are many questions, which simply cannot be answered because our calculating machinery is so inadequate.
The last of the book is a beautiful picture of what James calls the tender mercies of God toward Job. (Jas. 5:11) God says to Job, "Now I want you to pray for your friends---these three dear men, so stubborn, so sure that they had all the answers, so well meaning, so sincere, so dedicated, but such utter blunderers. Pray for them. Job."
Then God said to Job, "How many sheep did you have?" Job said, "Seven thousand." God said, "All right, I will give you fourteen thousand. How many oxen did you have?" And he said, "Five hundred." God replied, "I'll give you a thousand. How many camels?" "Three thousand." "All right, Job, you will have six thousand camels. How many asses did you have?" "Five hundred." "I'll give you a thousand. How many sons and daughters?" "Seven sons and three daughters." "All right, you will have seven sons and three daughters more, doubled. Twice as many. Seven sons and three daughters in glory and seven sons and three daughters on earth." God restored twice as much to Job and he lived the rest of his life in blessedness and happiness. The account closes with the words,
And Job died, and old man, and full of days. (Job 42:17)
Now the remarkable thing about this book is the answer we are given: the fact that the backdrop to human suffering is the age-long conflict of Satan's challenge to God's righteous government of the universe. This answer is never given to Job, at least while he lives. At the beginning of the book you find God, Satan, and Job. At the end of the book, Satan has faded out of the picture entirely and God stands before Job with his arms akimbo, saying, "All right, I am responsible. Any questions?" The great lesson of the book is that there are times when we cannot be told the whole picture. There are times when God does not adequately explain life to us. There are times when we must trust that not all suffering occurs because we are bad, but because it can also be the source of some final good. The deepest note in the book may be struck when, out of the desolation of his heart and yet with the Spirit of God within him urging him on to faith in the midst of his bewilderment and confusion, Job says,
But he knows the way that I take; when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold. (Job 23:10)
That is the lesson of this book. Life is too complicated for us to handle alone. It gets so involved that we can't even be given some of the answers at times, but God is saying, "If you just take a look at all the problems that I keep solving on the very simplest levels of life and which even then are far beyond your ability to cope with, can't you trust me to work this one out as well?" In Romans Paul rejoices, "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)
Prayer
Our Father, thank you for this look into Job's heart. Thank you for recording for us the struggles of this dear man as he frankly, openly, and honestly voices his doubts, airs his grievances, addresses you with his complaints. Lord, we hear ourselves, in our irksome petulance crying out to you, blaming you for our circumstances, unwilling to believe that you have a purpose behind them and are able to work them out. Lord, teach us to rest in you through the great and wonderful revelation that in every circumstance we are privileged to be instruments in the working out of victory over the enemy of man; to demonstrate once and for all that the only life worth living is a life lived by faith. We pray in your name. Amen.
Copyright (C) 1995 Discovery Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church.
This data file is the sole property of Discovery Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church. It may be copied only in its entirety for circulation freely without charge. All copies of this data file must contain the above copyright notice.
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 1/1/2004 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Whew, came back from taking my kids skiing to discover so much food for thought.
Iconoclast, you are right, the prologue does let us know that something is going on. I will try to get the book "Satan and the Problem of Evil." I still, though, wish that God had taken a different course for Job.
Tom, I think that God might have those constraints on his power. But these constraints are of His chosing. As far as trusting in God, that is not that easy for me. My record with God is not one that underscores his trustworthiness in my life. Betting with satan does not seem to be such a trustworthy gesture. I am still working on the trust with Jesus. Yes I know that many will say that his crucifixion is an incredible sacrifice and the pain that he suffered for us is enough for trust. I honestly am humbled by what he did sacrificing Himself for our sins, but I have only started really seeking out Jesus about two years ago, so there is not a lot of history between us. I suspect this kind of deep trust and faith must grow.
Tim, thanks so much for the Stedman article. I was glad to see that he too pointed out that Job was real, not just a literary element.
I actually looked up his geneology today. Genesis 46:13 The sons of Issachar were Tola, Puvah, Job, and Shimron." but what was confusing to me was when I checked I Chronicles 7:16 it said "The sons of Issachar were Tola, Puah, Jashub, and Shimron - four in all" I don't know if Jashub is a derivation of Job or not. But I know that these time periods do overlap because of the tremendous lifespans of the people back then. Elihu is also listed in the geneologies.
I was surprised to see that Job was not listed in the geneologies of Jesus or in the gallery of the faithful in Hebrews 11.
Your article points out that God never really answers Job's question, but points out the complexity of the universe.
This is in agreement with Boyd's theory of the warfare model.
I have just finished his chapter on prayer, and the 9 reasons why prayer answers seem arbitrary.
What bothers me is that, if the universe is so complex, and all roads that we can take to try and make sense of the world, or to try and communicate with God about our situation are so complex, why bother?
When I was 8 or 9 I wrote a story about a little boy in nursery school who built a universe of sand. His parents came to pick him up and pointed out the errors that their son had done with some planets too close to the sun and some too far away. The little child (God) walked away, washed his hands, and went home. Even back then I had a hard time believing that God stuck around to do much with the world that He created.
Now I see that Jesus refutes that. But when it comes to prayer and intervention today, could maybe God have said, I sent Jesus to bring salvation, now you are on your own.
All this chaos and confusion, and problems with elements in the heavenlies, demons, etc. make me wonder at the effectiveness of anything we do or can do. Maybe we really are on our own.
I also, as a young adult, thought that maybe God has His favorites, those He would help and those He wouldn't. The hardening of peoples hearts helped to confirm that. I also figured out that people probably built their theories to give them comfort. Maybe all our theories have no basis in reality.
It is hard to reconcile the blueprint model and the warfare model. Both are compelling and both are incomplete. But I could see a lot of Christians saying that it is heretical that we would think that God was not in perfect control of everything.
I suppose Boyd is right, that why is the wrong question, but that saddens me so much. The answer to the why could help so much in the building of my faith. If only that butterfly did not flutter the extra time. sigh.
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/2/2004 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Heather: Tom, I think that God might have those constraints on his power. But these constraints are of His choosing.
Tom: Quite so. They are the constraints required by a world capable of love. Since love was what God was after, granting us freedom (and limiting the exercise of his power) was his choice. Our freedom to say “no” to God (that is, God’s self-chosen limits on the exercise of his power) was the price-tag God had to pay for creating a world whose goal was love. In choosing to have children to love and be loved by you you also agreed to similar constraints on your power and say-so. We are perfectly capable of understanding God’s decision to create out of love and for love as well as the sort of limitations such a goal requires.
Heather: As far as trusting in God, that is not that easy for me. My record with God is not one that underscores his trustworthiness in my life.
Tom: You must be of the opinion that God was capable of creating a perfectly loving world while guaranteeing that chilldren are never abused? So long as you believe this was a viable option God could have chosen but simply chose NOT to for reasons of his own, I can understand why trusting God is difficult. In fact, I suspect that so long as you hang on to this belief, trusting God will remain difficult if not impossible for you. But why believe creating a world capable of interpersonal relationships of love AND guaranteeing that children aren’t abused was even a “possible” world God could have created? Doesn’t our own experience of love and interpersonal relationships tell us otherwise? Doesn’t our experience of having children and exposing them to the very great risks of suffering and evil for the sake of experiencing OUR love expose such thinking as a lie? If you think YOUR love worth the risk of exposing children to the horrors of a world filled with evil, why assume God incapable of making the same value judgment, believing HIS love worth the risk? Why continue to mistrust God because of what happened to you as a girl? While you and I may not have a detailed explanation of the specifics surrounding our abuse, we DO have all we need to free ourselves of the lie that God was in a position to rescue us but simply didn’t want to. What I’m saying, Heather, is that the cross frees you from having to know the specific “why” of your personal tragedy. It’s enough to know that God did all he could—given the specifics of your situation and given the constraints he bound himself to when creating a world of love and moral responsibility—to prevent the evil that touched you. If the cross isn’t enough to release us to trust him without reservation, there’s no “why” out there which, if we understood it perfectly, would release us to trust him.
Heather: Betting with satan does not seem to be such a trustworthy gesture. I am still working on the trust with Jesus. Yes I know that many will say that his crucifixion is an incredible sacrifice and the pain that he suffered for us is enough for trust. I honestly am humbled by what he did sacrificing Himself for our sins, but I have only started really seeking out Jesus about two years ago, so there is not a lot of history between us. I suspect this kind of deep trust and faith must grow.
Tom: So true. Relationships and trust are built and take time. Though I think understanding the cross in a warfare framework is THE key to our knowing what we CAN know about theodicy, I don’t pretend to suggest it accomplishes its work in us over night. It does take time. I so hope and pray you discover the overwhelming joy of having more than enough reason to trust God.
Heather: What bothers me is that, if the universe is so complex, and all roads that we can take to try and make sense of the world, or to try and communicate with God about our situation are so complex, why bother?
Tom: Sounds like your logic basically is: Why bother investing a lot of time and energy understanding what is complex? It all depends on what one hopes to gain. You work on your marriage though marriage is complex! I’m really struggling with my 15 year old daughter right now. Talk about complex! But I invest in it and pursue it. Seems to me we put up with the head-ache and complexity of something to the extent we place a value on that something. If the outcome is a relationship with my daughter, then in spite of the complexity of raising an extremely lonely teenage girl in a non English speaking, Muslim culture with zero Christian friends, I bother with it because I value her. The complexities drive me to tears sometimes, and I will NEVER understand them all, but she’s worth it. Same with the complexities that stand in the way of anything we value greatly. How greatly do you value the joy and freedom of enjoying a God who is vastly more trustworthy than any need you might ever have? Well, why let the complexities surrounding God’s workings in the world (why he sometimes is able to prevent evil and sometimes not) keep you from it? See, I’d only give up bothering with great complexities if I thought obtaining what I valued depended on exhaustively understanding the complexities themselves. But that’s NOT the case with trusting God! All that’s required is that I understand the nature of the complexities. And that takes all of a moment or two.
So in saying the mystery of evil is about creation and not about the character of God, we aren’t saying you have to dissect the specific complexities surrounding every evil you encounter before you can benefit spiritually from simply knowing THAT the mystery is about creation. Plus you’ve got the cross confirming to you, Heather, how much God values you. So don’t mistake “the mystery is in creation” to mean “you have to understand the details of the mystery.” They're not the same.
Heather: It is hard to reconcile the blueprint model and the warfare model. Both are compelling and both are incomplete. But I could see a lot of Christians saying that it is heretical that we would think that God was not in perfect control of everything.
Tom: There IS NO complete anything when it comes to theology. There is no complete theodicy, no complete eschatology, no complete view of inspiration, no complete anthropology, no complete nuttin.
I’m interested, after what you’ve been through in life, what do you find “compelling” about the blueprint worldview, about the belief that God eternally and unconditionally determined your abuser(s) do to you precisely what they did? You can see how a lot of Christians would find denying THIS heretical? I’m surprised. I can more easily understand a person who thought affirming God does such things was heretical.
Heather: I suppose Boyd is right, that why is the wrong question, but that saddens me so much. The answer to the why could help so much in the building of my faith. If only that butterfly did not flutter the extra time. sigh.
Tom: I wanna say this as sensitively as I can, but I honestly believe that your knowing the “why” surrounding the specifics of your personal suffering wouldn’t build your faith in the slightest. What need would you then have for “faith” if you understood all the in’s and out’s of every flutter of every butterfly’s wing related to your life? On the other hand, why is it not enough for the God who climbed onto the cross and died for you to say, “Heather, I did all I could to keep you free from abuse, but sometimes even my will isn’t accomplished. Now, if you can't understand all the factors, the reasons, the interplay of cross-purposes, and complexities of creation that were behind my not being able to prevent your abuse, you CAN understand this: the cross. The cross is how much I love you, how valuable you are to me, how willing I was to experience your abuse with you, and how much you can trust me now!”
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/2/2004 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Iconoclast:
What is difficult about this is that we cannot trust Jesus to prevent further abuse to us. In fact, we can be assured that we will experience at least some pain, suffering and even physical death in the future - no matter how much faith we have or how spiritual our prayers are or how much we love God and one another.
quote]
Right. Every religion (I'm reading Fr. Alexander Schmemann's commentary on the Nicene Creed from his broadcasts in Russian over Radio Liberty) claims to answer and solve the problem of death and pain. Christianity DOES NOT. Instead, Christ guarantees that if we desire to live for him we will and must take up a cross, and suffer. Baptism is, as said, BOTH a "grave" and a "mother." We descend and rise. We die in Christ in baptism, and live through Him.
[quote]Iconoclast:
So what are we trusting Jesus for?[/
We trust the Lord of Life, and embrace the cross.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/2/2004 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Tom (putting words in Jesus' mouth)
"...The cross is how much I love you, how valuable you are to me, how willing I was to experience your abuse with you, and how much you can trust me now!”
Iconoclast
What is difficult about this is that we cannot trust Jesus to prevent further abuse to us. In fact, we can be assured that we will experience at least some pain, suffering and even physical death in the future - no matter how much faith we have or how spiritual our prayers are or how much we love God and one another.
So what are we trusting Jesus for?
thanks,
Iconoclast
Is that you asking that question Iconoclast, or did somebody steal your password? 
Yes, we will suffer. We will get hurt. I think I put these words in Jesus' mouth too. He cannot guarantee that we won't experience evil and suffering. In the world we WILL have tribulation. But Christ has overcome the world. And in him, we have overcome it as well. And since we continue to suffer, the overcoming that we now experience must be something other than "avoiding the pain of suffering and evil." We trust Jesus for what he's promised and won for us through the cross: Life eternal--the expereience of his presence, the forgiveness of our sin, the cry of sonship, the joy of fellowship, the blessings of intimacy with him, deepening Christlikeness and comformity to his image, the reality of his Spirit's empowering and effects in our life (love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, self-control, etc.). We trust for these. These God CAN guarantee. These are ours. Heather can have them in this life. Suffering can't remove these from our lives unless we choose to hand them over in response to our pain.
We sometimes get more--the healing of our bodies, the answers to our prayers, the salvation of our loved ones, and on and on. These aren't guaranteed, but we still pray and fight for them. What is guaranteed, however, is relationship to Jesus and all that flows from relationship, experiencing the life-changing effect of an ever-deepening relationship to God.
Yes? No?
But I'm concerned. I can hardly believe that you would deny that the cross reveals how much God loves us, how valuable we are to God, or that God experiences our abuse and suffering. How is that Iconoclast? What gives?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 1/3/2004 3:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Tom, I just see way too much pain and suffering in the world, not just my own pain and suffering. Believe it or not, I am grateful fo what I have today, a loving husband and three great kids (although I am looking forward to their returning to school on Monday, the bickering is getting to me). I also realize that I am grateful that God did not let me kill myself, and I sure tried often enough and in enough creative ways that I should have succeeded. Had you asked me back when I lived in constant depression if I would ever see the age of 30 or be married and have a family I would have laughed at you, if I could have laughed. I don't want you to think that I don't also spend time counting my blessings, and I do have many to count.
I also know that logically God could not create a world with free will and then micromanage everything, but there are some things that really puzzle me. Taking it away from the personal sphere, look at the sufferings of the Jews in Nazi Germany, or even the kids and adults in Iraq. Or even what happens to many kids today. There is way too much pain and suffering. If someone is hurting my kids I would step in and intervene, or at least gather them in my arms and comfort them. They would know that their mom is there for them. Some pain and suffering produces growth, overwhelming pain and suffering is nonproductive. Perhaps God then should be called Our Creator, instead of Our Father. When I pray to God I can only pray, "God..." the words our Father cannot cross my lips. Unfortunately the cross, to date, has not freed me from the need to know why.
You are right, when I vented and said why bother doing anything in this complex universe, I almost re logged on and wrote that this was a wrong conclusion. I realized that whatever I did could be the butterfly wing flap that makes the ultimate difference. Perhaps the best that I can do in this earth is to reach out as I do to others, to help kids, and relieve as much suffering as possible which is a drop in the bucket.
I guess I do not trust God enough, I do trust him for salvation (the cross) but am not sure that He realy wants that personal relationship with us that others think he does.
Iconoclast, I don't have an answer for your question of what are we trusting Jesus for? Personally I trust Jesus and God for creation and salvation. But I don't go and ask much else.
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/3/2004 3:27 AM (GMT -6) | | wondering: I guess I do not trust God enough, I do trust him for salvation (the cross) but am not sure that He realy wants that personal relationship with us that others think he does.
Tom: What "salvation" were you told you were accepting when you accepted Christ if not the most personal and intimate of relationships? What did you think you were accepting? Biblically speaking, salvation IS that relationship. When and where did you learn to separate them?
Well, I'm not a counselor (as you can tell! ), but I really appreciate your honesty.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/3/2004 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom
But I'm concerned. I can hardly believe that you would deny that the cross reveals how much God loves us, how valuable we are to God, or that God experiences our abuse and suffering. How is that Iconoclast? What gives?
Iconoclast
I denied that the cross reveals how much God love us? That was certainly not my intent. Let me be more clear about how this issue of what we are trusting Jesus FOR is somewhat confusing and then give my take on it.
Tom said:
quote:
"...The cross is how much I love you, how valuable you are to me, how willing I was to experience your abuse with you, and how much you can trust me now!”
This formulation is unclear about what exactly it is that we are trusting Jesus for. The combination of the word “now” and “how willing I was to experience your abuse” suggests that our abuse was in the past but that now we can trust Jesus to stop that abuse.
Tom, I don’t assume that you think this or that this is what you were trying to say – I just think this is a standard confusion that a lot of us fall into so I thought it worth exploring.
The core issue here is with the word trust. What does it mean to trust? Why do we trust or not trust? My understanding of the word trust is that:
Trust = Past Positive Experience
What are we trusting Jesus for? What actual positive experience does Jesus give us that we can trust Him for?
Notice the presuppositions I am making here – we only trust someone based on the actual experience we have with them (or others who are similar) and we only trust them within the particular category or type of experience that we have with them.
Jesus does not give us an experience of Himself stopping the abuse that we suffer from others or from His creation. I think we all agree that we cannot trust Him for this.
Jesus also does not give us an experience of Himself transporting us to Heaven when we die if we believe in Him. He does not give us an experience of this TYPE of salvation – so how is it that we can trust Him for this? We can certainly choose to believe Him – but how is it that we can actually trust Him without some actual Past Positive Experience?
It seems to me that the only Past Positive Experience that Jesus dying on the cross actually gives us is that of the Omnipotent Creator of the Universe unconditionally loving us.
My answer is that we CAN trust Jesus to unconditionally love us based on Him dying on the cross. However, we only WILL trust Jesus to unconditionally love us based on the EXTENT to which we allow ourselves to actually enter into the experience that He offers up to us. We WILL only trust Jesus to unconditionally love us to the extent that we see, feel and hear Him dying on the cross for US – to the extent that we stop discounting this experience as really being for others and NOT us – to the extent that we stop thinking that Jesus really died for everyone BUT us – to the extent that we actually have faith that this experience IS for ME.
What does it mean to have faith that Jesus died for ME?
Faith = Acting on a Belief
Faith is not Belief. Belief is not faith. Before we can have faith we must first believe that Jesus died for us. But believing does not give us a Past Positive Experience and thus cannot give us trust. The only way we can get trust is to have an actual positive experience with Jesus. The only way we can have a positive experience with Jesus is to act on the belief that Jesus died for us by actually choosing to experience (see, hear and feel) Jesus dying on the cross for us – we must actually choose to experience Jesus’ unconditional love for us.
So, what is so hard about that? It is, in fact, terribly hard because it contradicts our deeply-held belief that we are unlovable and hence unworthy of Jesus’ love.
We do not trust that Jesus unconditionally loves us because we do not allow ourselves to experience His love because we do not believe that we are worthy to be loved – we do not believe that we are lovable.
So, how does the cross give us an actual Past Positive Experience of salvation? In those moments when we actually experience (see, hear and feel) Jesus looking down from the cross directly at us and telling us that He loves us right here and right now – when we feel His love washing over us – when we feel totally loved by Him, just as we are - in that moment we realize for the first time that we ARE okay – that we ARE lovable – that we are, in fact, loved by the Creator of the Universe – in that moment we actually experience salvation. Salvation is NOT that when we die Jesus will transport us to heaven if we believe in Him. Salvation is the realization, the actual experience that Jesus unconditionally loves us right here and right now – that we are, in fact, already okay – we are being saved from our own judgement that we are unlovable (Jesus said it Himself – “the judgement you make is the judgement you shall receive”).
So, why don’t we feel this all the time if Jesus loves us so much? Why doesn’t Jesus just give us this experience all the time? I think the answer is that this is an experience that must be chosen. Love must be chosen. If love must be chosen then the experience of love must be chosen. Faith in God is the act of choosing to experience the love of Jesus by entering into the experience that Jesus has given us on the cross.
Greg Boyd wrote a book that gives specific things we can do to deny the lie that we are unlovable and actually enter into the experience of Jesus’ unconditional love for us. It is highlighted on the home page of His web site – it looks like it is called “seeing is believing” – it also looks like it is not yet published. I read it some time ago as an unpublished document that was sold at his church.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/3/2004 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: My answer is that we CAN trust Jesus to unconditionally love us based on Him dying on the cross. However, we only WILL trust Jesus to unconditionally love us based on the EXTENT to which we allow ourselves to actually enter into the experience that He offers up to us.
Tom: Precisely. We are on the same page, staying at the same Chateau, drinking from the same bottle, smok...well, you get the point.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 1/3/2004 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Tom, I know that Biblically that the relationship with God is not separate from salvation, and I guess intellectually I can concede that. But in my innermost being that relationship does not exist. I pray to a void, I read the Word and find much of interest in the Word.
And I do still pray, albeit to the void. I used to say that I prayed AT God, not TO God.
Some that I know have these awesome relationships with God, they feel his presence, hear from Him, and can have total faith nomatter what the circumstances. I guess I am just more skeptical. I know that people state that God really loved me, but I have a problem believing that. I think sometimes that with all my skepticism that God probably wishes he had made an exclusionary clause for me. Maybe He did - after all he can't seem to make plans for the future until after our free will decisions are made acording to the warfare model.
I just finished the Boyd book about Is God to Blame, and have ordered the book you suggested from my local bookstore and it should come in sometime next week hopefully. In the meantime I noticed that Boyd wrote a book that I drop kicked across the room about a year and a half ago (not literally, but that's what I wanted to do with it), the Letters from a Skeptic. I am now trying to read it again and am pleased to say that I got past letter 3, so maybe this time I will finish it :). Still the questions that it covers are very similar to the ones I am dealing with, and the answers are still a bit difficult for me.
I have noticed, that I have toned down my anger at God, but the anger is still there, it is just not so vitriolic. One point that caused me to quit reading the book is on page 23, when he tries to answer his father's question about why the world is so full of suffering. He says, "So too, if God really gives us freedom, it must be, at least to a large extent irrevocable. He must have, within limits, a "hands off" attitude toward it. God creates free poeple who can do as they please, not determined instruments who always end up dong what He pleases."
My question is: WHAT THE HECK ARE HIS LIMITS??????
It sure seems that He tolerates way too much garbage to really qualify as trustworthy and loving. And Boyd's father's question then covers natural disasters. Those are not governed by free will, could God not ease a drought, an earthquake, or havoc?
And yes, I can sort of see the principalities argument, that that puts in another variable, but I am beginning to think of God holding a big ball of yarn that a cat got into a massive tangle and being unable to untangle it.
Could it be wishful thinking that we need to believe that God is in charge so that we don't feel so chaotic in our lives? Could it be that it is a sort of defense mechanism for people to believe that God personally cares for us? Maybe he corporately cared for us and our salvation, but personally we are off on our own.
Please do not get mad it this sounds like heresy, I am being honest about doubts and concerns, not trying to provoke ire in people's hearts.
Trust, faith, hope - why are all the little words so difficult?
Trust has to be built, I suppose that if God wants me to trust Him, He is going to have to do a bit of healing inside of me, but maybe that is too much intervention on His part. I suspect that when one is abused as a baby, that trust just doesn't develop. I cannot just say, "Hey I trust you God?" not unless I want to be lying. I can say that I would like to be able to trust God and that is really one of my strongest desires, but that kind of trust has to be based on something that is more substantial in my life.
The problem with faith is that if you experience something in the natural, then you no longer have faith for it. Faith only can be there with something that is not yet manifested. So if you have proof of your faith, then in reality you no longer have the faith, you have the manifestation. Kind of a willow-the-wisp sort of a concept.
Perhaps hope is all that we can have. We can hope we can trust God, we can hope that we can have faith, we can hope that there is a better place after we die. We can hope that our prayers are answered. Perhaps hope is the beginning of faith, but it is a long way off from faith.
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/5/2004 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Wondering04. Thanks for your honesty. Glad you're giving "Letters" another read. Hope it helps.
Let me just offer two responses to your last post.
a) On "trusting God." I personally think this is one of the most twisted concepts within Christendom. People talk about "trusting God" for a lot of things that THEY know are not only "up to God." E.g. Many say they "trust God" for protection, but they stil lock their doors at night, buy insurance, carry mace when walking late at night, etc... And they should, because there are MANY wills that affect what comes to pass in this world, not just God's will.
What CAN we trust God for? I believe it comes down to
i) trusting that his character is what he reveals it to be in Jesus Christ, dying for you on the cross;
ii) trust that he will win in the end
iii) trusting that if you are on his side, you will win in the end, and iv) trusting that it will all be worth it... he will redeem good even out of the evil we have experienced. And,
v) trusting that prayer makes a difference, though we more often than not can't discern this difference.
b) About Faith. Faith isn't the antithesis of reason or evidence. Its about what you believe that goes beyond (but not against) reason and evidence. We have FAITH in almost everything we do. You get on a flight to chicago because you have FAITH that * the pilot isn't drunk, * terrorists are not on board *mechanics have done their job * a bomb hasn't been planted etc.... You haven't PROVEN beyond all shadow of doubt that these things are so. But its REASONABLE to ACT on this assumption.
So too, having faith in Christ goes beyond, but not against, reason and evidence. Its the decision to ACT on the conviction that Jesus is Lord. Its in principle no different than getting on a plane.
I think its a very reasonable ACT.... but like getting on a plane, I can't PROVE it can't possibly be wrong.
Then again, I can't prove any OTHER view either.
And yet, we HAVE to act in one direction or another.
Faith is forced upon us by LIFE.
Blessings and thanks again for your honesty,
Greg Boyd
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 1/6/2004 1:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Dr. Boyd, thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions!
Some troubling passages from the Letters From a Skeptic.
PP. 46 - Is your God all-powerful?
1) "If there is a "limit on God's power, it is only there by His decision, not some power outside."
2) "He determines the parameters of our freedom within the flow of history which He directs, and in this sense God is always "in control." For this reason there is absolutely no chance God could ever lose this "cosmic battle." As much power as Satan has, the ultimate purpose of God--to have a creation which shares love with Him--is never threatened."
Then you mention that God does not control each individual due to the need for them to have free will, so that when someone inflicts pain on another person, we can't look for the purpose of God in the situation. "But to "allow" something and to "purpose it" or "cause it" are two very different things. (actually by my count that is three different things, but that is not my problem with the passage).
I guess the way I see it God either is in control or He isn't. You really can't have it both ways. And frankly, some of the things God chooses to give to people to control are quite questionable.
Does the term mad scientist come to mind? He wants to see what we do with this experimental earth and answer the question, can people still love Me if I give them free will? And I guess when free will goes bad, it means that it is a failed experiment.
At some point will God not just take his free will and try again with another universe, another creation? What, given all the pain and hurt in this universe, makes us really feel that God is still there and involved? At some point, won't he say, "Enough!" How many deaths does it take? How much pain and hurt? What is his limit?
I was sorry to learn that on P.60, that you had tough times with your first step mom. And I can relate to memories coming back, that is currently something that I too am dealing with. Fortunately for you, you seeem to have a sense that God does love you. You are tremendously lucky to have that perspective.
I really am thinking that it is wishful thinking to imagine that God cares for us. I think that it is a comfort in a chaotic universe. We all struggle to find something that makes sense to us. And I guess our situations in part determine how we make sense of the universe.
As a child with two non-parents (parents who never acted like loving parents), and a lot of abuse, the only way I could make sense of my life is to believe that there must have been something so terribly flawed in me that my own parents could not love me the way parents should love. And then when I prayed vehemently to God to help in the situation, I finally concluded that maybe I was so flawed that even God did not want to help. Maybe God did not respond because at the time I prayed for His help I had never seen a Bible, and only heard of God on TV. So maybe you need to be saved to have God intervene on your behalf.
It still seems to me that God gets off the hook a lot. People need to believe in a Good God, so they find excuses, or look to the afterlife. But if God is going to create a world with so much hurt in it, maybe he should quit creating. I think we are just a failed experiment.
Even Moses, who had probably one of the most up and personal relationships with God says, quoting God, "Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who an deliver from My hand." Deut 32:39
So even by God's claims, he does do things that cause pain and hurt and death.
I really need to get this question sorted out. How much can we really trust God? Is He still around to be trusted?
Heather
| | Back to Top | | |
| 52 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:27 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 |
|
|