 |
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/10/2004 5:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
For now, all evil is not being stopped, right? BUT God combats evil on evry front and anywhere there is evil the Father is seeking to redeem, restore, heal...all of those things that love does. I love Romans 8:38,39
Hello Jo-Anne, thanks for pointing out some very important verses: Romans 8:35-39 (NLT)
"Can anything ever separate us from Christ's love? Does it mean he no longer loves us if we have trouble or calamity, or are persecuted, or are hungry or cold or in danger or threatened with death? (Even the Scriptures say, "For your sake we are killed every day; we are being slaughtered like sheep.") No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us.
And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from his love. Death can't, and life can't. The angels can't, and the demons can't. Our fears for today, our worries about tomorrow, and even the powers of hell can't keep God's love away. Whether we are high above the sky or in the deepest ocean, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Not only do we find in these verses some of the most comforting promises in all Scripture. We also find that "the love of God is revealed in Jesus". When it comes to combating evil in all it's forms, we should keep our eyes fixed on Jesus where the nature of God is revealed.
Peace be with you, Mark
LFW:
1. God makes the choice for all people. Those not selected for eternal life have grounds for complaint.
2. God invites all but only some respond. Those who don't respond don't have any grounds for complaint, they got what they wanted.
- Albert Einstein, 2004 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/11/2004 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm…just noticed something…
From Christus Victor Website
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=550
All words Greg Boyd's. All bolded emphases mine.
Genesis 45:5; 50:20
Joseph said to his brothers, “...now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life,” (cf. v. 7). Joseph later says, “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people...”
Compatiblists often argue that these texts illustrate that God ordains evil actions for greater good. While different interpretations are possible, I am largely in agreement with compatibilists on this point. The passage seems to indicate that God intentionally orchestrated the evil intentions of the brothers in order to get Joseph into Egypt.
Does this support the compatibilists claim that all actions fit into God’s eternal sovereign plan? I do not believe so. Consider three points. First, though he probably could have achieved his objectives in a variety of ways, the biblical narrative leads us to believe that a good deal of God’s plan for world history hinged on getting Joseph and his brothers to Egypt at this time. In these extraordinary times it should not surprise us to find God involved in extraordinary ways. This text should not be taken as a proof text of how God usually, let alone always, operates.
Second, if we chose to take this episode as evidence of how God always operates, we must accept the consequence that this passage always minimizes the responsibility of human agents. For this is the conclusion Joseph himself draws from his observation that God was using his brothers to send him to Egypt. “Do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves,” he tells them, “for God sent me...”
If this is in fact how God always operates—if God is involved in each kidnapping and murder the way he was involved in the activity of Joseph brothers—we must be willing to console every murderer and kidnapper with Joseph’s words: “Do not be distressed, or angry with yourself...for God kidnapped and murdered your victim.” We can’t universalize the mode of God’s operation in this passage without also universalizing its implication for human responsibility.
Third, it is significant that the passage does not suggest that God had orchestrated the brothers’ activity before creation or even before the brothers developed their characters. The text only suggests that at some point in the course of God’s interaction with humans, God decided that it fit his sovereign purpose to steer the brothers intentions in the manner we read in Genesis.
Hence, while I agree with compatibilists that this text shows that God may decide to orchestrate evil actions according to his sovereign will, I deny that this passage supports the conclusion that all evil actions occur in accordance with God’s eternal, sovereign will.
In no way complicit, yes?
Thoughts?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/11/2004 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Allow me to make my own commentary on this...
Doc writes:
quote:
Second, if we chose to take this episode as evidence of how God always operates, we must accept the consequence that this passage always minimizes the responsibility of human agents. For this is the conclusion Joseph himself draws from his observation that God was using his brothers to send him to Egypt. “Do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves,” he tells them, “for God sent me...”
If this is in fact how God always operates—if God is involved in each kidnapping and murder the way he was involved in the activity of Joseph brothers—we must be willing to console every murderer and kidnapper with Joseph’s words: “Do not be distressed, or angry with yourself...for God kidnapped and murdered your victim.” We can’t universalize the mode of God’s operation in this passage without also universalizing its implication for human responsibility.
Two implications to highlight:
1) Doc basically says here that to the extent that God orchestrates stuff like this, human responsibility is lessened. But, uh, then WHERE does responsibility (or culpability) then lie when these things occur? Three guesses...and all you really need is one!
2)Notice the embolded part. That whole paragraph ASSUMES that kidnapping and murder can be used by God in the same manner that the Joseph thing happened. Otherwise, it would not make sense. So what does THAT tell you? How about that it CAN be the case the God CAN use kidnapping and murder...just NOT all the time!
Now what.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/11/2004 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
If this is in fact how God always operates—if God is involved in each kidnapping and murder the way he was involved in the activity of Joseph brothers—we must be willing to console every murderer and kidnapper with Joseph’s words: “Do not be distressed, or angry with yourself...for God kidnapped and murdered your victim.” We can’t universalize the mode of God’s operation in this passage without also universalizing its implication for human responsibility.
Third, it is significant that the passage does not suggest that God had orchestrated the brothers’ activity before creation or even before the brothers developed their characters. The text only suggests that at some point in the course of God’s interaction with humans, God decided that it fit his sovereign purpose to steer the brothers intentions in the manner we read in Genesis.
Hence, while I agree with compatibilists that this text shows that God may decide to orchestrate evil actions according to his sovereign will, I deny that this passage supports the conclusion that all evil actions occur in accordance with God’s eternal, sovereign will.
orchestrate
or·ches·trate [áwrk#601; stràyt]
vt
1. music arrange music for an orchestra: to arrange or compose music to be played by an orchestra
2. organize something: to organize a situation or event unobtrusively so that a desired effect or outcome is achieved
The press conference had clearly been carefully orchestrated.
Hello Meph, good stuff you found. Doc still comes short of using the word complicit. He uses the words may orchestrate and involved, are we still talking about different terminology? Does God organize this fallen world for the greater good, I think so.
Peace, Mark
LFW:
1. God makes the choice for all people. Those not selected for eternal life have grounds for complaint.
2. God invites all but only some respond. Those who don't respond don't have any grounds for complaint, they got what they wanted.
- Albert Einstein, 2004 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/11/2004 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Spark, please explain to me how a sentient, free being can be thoroughly involved in a evil situation, even to the extent of ORDAINING and ORCHESTRATING said evil situation (both words used by Doc)...but IN NO WAY be morally culpable for their actions or complicit in their participation?
Please help me see what YOU are seeing. Cause I'm not getting it.
I think we all can relate to Joseph, we all have been in a hole. Some of us choose to get ticked off at God and the world; others choose to reach out for the hand of God to help pull them self out of the hole. They choose to let God’s providence turn evil into a greater good.
Meph, Maybe it is kind of like a play on words, or maybe it’s in the rules. Why can God keep his hands clean, why not the word complicit you ask? I don’t know but I believe the answer lies somewhere in the mystery of creation and free will. Some how God keeps his hands clean; I liked your white jump suit analogy. How that suit works is a mystery to me but some how it protects his purity. If a football player creates a foul, the coach is not complicit, the coach is involved and tries to organize the team, he tries to recruit, but he doesn’t play the game and never gets dirty. But he will recruit a dirty player (even for one play) for the greater good of his team. He recruited Saul/Paul from a dirty team; actually all of us are misfits on his team and He is complicit by being involved with any of us.
Peace, Mark
LFW:
1. God makes the choice for all people. Those not selected for eternal life have grounds for complaint.
2. God invites all but only some respond. Those who don't respond don't have any grounds for complaint, they got what they wanted.
- Albert Einstein, 2004 | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/11/2004 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph cites in support of God’s complicity in evil:
Exodus 50
19 But Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in God's place?
20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.
Johnmd says
I don’t necessarily want to get into the whole “complicity” thing. However, in so far as this particular text that you cited in support of God being complicit in evil, I do not believe your assumptions hold.
The Joseph story, I believe, is a true to life illustaration of Romans 8:28.
The text states, “ …you [the brothers] meant evil…God meant ‘IT’ [evil] for good.”
The “IT” the author refers too is is the evil.
I assume we all agree to this point.
Here is the kicker…James states emphatically, “God is not the author of evil.”
Hence God did not author the “IT” that God meant for good.
The “IT” [evil] came about as a result of the brothers. The “IT [evil] did not exist until the brothers brought the evil into existence. We know this because this is what the text states and also because we know from James that God does not ever bring evil into existence.
These are my assumptions based on the full spectrum of Scripture. So, with these assumptions intact the Joseph story integrates perfectly with Romans 8:28 and goes as follows:
Joseph’s brothers brought the evil into existence. Now we have an “IT.” The brothers meant the evil for harm. In contrast, God because of His infinite wisdom, now takes the evil entity (that He did not create) and works “IT” to the good. In other words, evil became the nature of the case that God had to work with. For me, the Joseph story is a perfect demonstration of how God RESPONDS to evil and redeems evil, not how He originates and orchestrates evil.
God is cleaning up the mess the brothers made. What glory is there in God making a mess, causing evil, etc and then cleaning it up? The brothers are certainly complicit in this evil, but God is not.
To assert that God is in anyway complicit in evil violates the emphatic statement of James. Hence, I believe that James is the place to start with our systematic thought and then incorporate the narrative examples and not vice versa. Regardless I believe there is ample exegetical evidence even in the Exodus text that does not warrant the conclusion that God is complicit in the evil of the situation. Just the mention of the brother’s actions IN CONTRAST to God’s indicates to me that the inspired author is making an effort to draw a distinction between the two parties and is not giving the impression that God was in this from the inception. That is the point of making rhetorical contrasts. Here, God is simply RESPONDING to the [evil] situation at hand—an evil situation according to James that God had nothing to do with. God "meant" the evil now in existence for good.
Any other examples from Scripture where God is complicit in evil? Let's take them one by one and exegete them using James as our benchmark and see where we end up.
Blessings,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/11/2004 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
Could you post that exact Scripture in James and break it down, please?
You don't mean this, do you?
James 1:12-18 NIV
Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
I sure hope it's not this one.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/11/2004 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | The following are a sampling of verses that directly contradict the idea that God is in any way complicit in evil:
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
(Note the stark parallel contrasts, with absolutely no gray areas in the above verse).
Gen. 18:25 Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
(Abraham appeals to God's perfect goodness/righteousness in the matter of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abe apparently didn't think to himself, "Ya know, God's really complicit in evil, and this destruction of both good and evil people could very well be for the greater good, like sacrificing the rook to save the queen. Yeah, that's the ticket").
Luke 6:44 " For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.
45 " The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
(Here the Lord Jesus speaks of the two basic kinds of people, two basic kinds of hearts: the good vs. the evil. Elsewhere, Jesus says, "The pure in heart shall see God." But Meph's thesis would require one to believe that God's heart is not pure or perfectly good, although Jesus clearly teaches that men's hearts can be pure and good. Wouldn't it be strange if God were not pure in heart and not wholly good, and yet would command people to be MORE righteous, good, and holy than He himself is?).
Romans 3:8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.
(Wouldn't it be strange if to do evil that good may come were okay for God but not okay for us? Wouldn't even be more strange if Paul would condemn moral behavior in people that would not be blameworthy in God?)
Hebrews 5
13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.
14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
(This one seems to flatly contradict the Bonhoefferian thesis, so popular on this board, that the knowledge of good and evil is by definition a bad thing in our day and age).
Proverbs 8
12 "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.
13To fear the LORD is to hate evil;
I hate pride and arrogance,
evil behavior and perverse speech.
14 Counsel and sound judgment are mine;
I have understanding and power.
Amos 5
15 Hate evil, love good;
maintain justice in the courts.
Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy
on the remnant of Joseph.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
(Here doing evil and doing "truth" are sharply contrasted. Elsewhere, Scripture everywhere affirms that God is good, and is in fact also called TRUTH. It would be odd indeed were God to be in violation of the principle laid down in the above verses).
John 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
Speaking of God, Habakkuk says:
Hab. 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to behold evil,
and you cannot look on wrongdoing;
why do you look on the treacherous,
and are silent when the wicked swallow
those more righteous than they?
Isaiah 1:16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
(Doesn't it seem strange that God doesn't even hint that evil and good are by definition comingled in every action?)
Prov. 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
But he who hates reproof is stupid.
2
A good man will obtain favor from the LORD,
But He will condemn a man who devises evil.
(And yet some would say that God himself "devises" evil. Does God contradict himself?).
Psalm 97
9 For you, O LORD , are the Most High over all the earth;
you are exalted far above all gods.
10 Let those who love the LORD hate evil,
for he guards the lives of his faithful ones
and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
11 Light is shed upon the righteous
and joy on the upright in heart.
Psalm 34:8 Taste and see that the LORD is good;
blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.
9 Fear the LORD , you his saints,
for those who fear him lack nothing.
10 The lions may grow weak and hungry,
but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.
11 Come, my children, listen to me;
I will teach you the fear of the LORD .
12 Whoever of you loves life
and desires to see many good days,
13 keep your tongue from evil
and your lips from speaking lies.
14 Turn from evil and do good;
seek peace and pursue it.
15 The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their cry;
16 the face of the LORD is against those who do evil,
to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
17 The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them;
he delivers them from all their troubles.
18 The LORD is close to the brokenhearted
and saves those who are crushed in spirit.
19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
21 Evil will slay the wicked;
the foes of the righteous will be condemned.
22 The LORD redeems his servants;
no one will be condemned who takes refuge in him.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/11/2004 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Response to Meph
James 1:13
“When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone…” (NASB)
I think the NASB preserves the context better in the translation. The context is “evil.”
In Exodus the text says that the brothers did evil and “meant” evil, which at some point implies that they were “tempted” to do evil. James tells us emphatically that God did not do that. “God…does not tempt anyone (including the brothers) [to do evil].”
Just apply James to the brothers, or Joseph or anyone else. James contextualizes his comments drawing a contrast between one that perseveres under trial. And one who does not persevere. I submit that the ones whom James is addressing in the context of his letter (i.e., those who are sinning and therefore subject to progression toward death) are those who are attempting to make a connection between God and evil. The SIN James is referencing first and foremost is the SIN OF INDICTING GOD IN THE PROCESS OF TEMPTATION AND EVIL. That is the immediate context of the passage.
My assumption is that God was doing everything that He could do to persuade the brothers not to throw Joseph in the hole. Joseph probably bears some culpability for his past arrogance—although it seems unjust to punish a man for arrogance to the extent that Joseph was punished. Regardless, I assume that God was also doing all that He could do to remedy Joseph’s attitude. Ultimately, however, God had to deal with the situation that unfolded. The brothers did what they did and He had a “Job-like situation” on His hands and He ultimately redeemed the situation…But I do not believe as per the testimony of James that He redeemed the situation via tempting anyone to do evil. Even Human nature tells us God would not have to resort to such means. Evil, “residing” closer to “instinct” is much easier to predict than goodness. It takes the power of the Spirit to empower goodness. Evil just happens when one is left to go THERE OWN way. And evil usually happens along a fairly predictable path…at least relative to goodness.
What we see with the entire Joseph story is God “meaning” to bring good. He is not orchestrating the evil. He is orchestrating the good despite the evil. There is plenty of evil in his path. Remember Potiphar’s wife? Let’s apply “complicity” to her.
God orchestrates seduction. Let your imagination run wild as to what this woman did when she was alone with Joseph—to the point that He ran away without his clothes! Now that is some sordid seduction. Now can God have ANYTHING to do with that sordid seduction while at the same time holding Joseph to the one-man—one –woman rule? Does God, Himself, rub our nose in it as it were to see how we will behave? Or does God see the danger on the horizon and warn us not to submit to the temptation. Joseph and Potiphar is no “test” from God. It is the real thing—malicious temptation from Satan. And Satan is good at being bad. And, here, just as with the brothers God has a situation to redeem. And He does because God is good at being good.
So, anyway you dice it, God is not the author of evil. James parses the concept even further so that there is no misunderstanding.” When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.”
The verse says to me that God being only good has absolutely no relation to evil. There is no way God could be tempted to bring the evil into Joseph’s life that the text describes—throw a man in a hole, torment his father with unfounded grief, sell him into slavery, relegate him to prison, bring him up the ladder only to seduce him and throw him back into prison. God did not orchestrate that evil. Man/Satan did. Even our fallen intuition is reviled by such tactics. God just responded to the evil and redeemed it.
James takes the concept one step more “Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” James CONTRASTS the good and perfect gifts from God with “change like shifting shadows.” The point of the contrast is that we are deceived when we forget God is good. He does not change like shifting shadows when encouraging men in their trials. I submit we are deceived when we believe God orchestrates evil.
Ultimately I believe what Joseph was saying is, “Brothers what you were intent on bringing harm to me…God was intent on bring good out of.” And he did—a.k.a. Romans 8:28. James indicates God is not only NOT complicit in evil God has no concept of evil. He can’t be tempted to evil and He can’t tempt to evil. To say otherwise destroys the very definition of evil and God as is revealed.
To God alone be the glory
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/11/2004 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph says
Doc's writing. My emphases.
Third, it is significant that the passage does not suggest that God had orchestrated the brothers’ activity before creation or even before the brothers developed their characters. The text only suggests that at some point in the course of God’s interaction with humans, God decided that it fit his sovereign purpose to steer the brothers intentions in the manner we read in Genesis.
Doc's already taken what you've said in to consideration. And Doc sees that as ORCHESTRATION of the brother's evil intentions. Which I would say falls into the realm of complicity.
John says
I guess, if this is the case, I just respectfully disagree with Doc. Your emphasized part is right down my alley. I would suggest that the text never says that God “steered the brothers intentions.” I do not recall Doc exegeting the passage in detail. I have all of his books. Send me the reference if he did. I certainly haven't. But here are my thoughts.
Granted the brothers had intentions but it is no stretch within the culture of the day to imagine the brothers deriving their wicked action toward Joseph without any help from God. If God did not “orchestrated the brothers’ activity before creation or even before the brothers developed their characters,” Why would He have to start orchestrating thereafter?
God does not need or have to have evil in any measure to redeem. He is plenty wise to work around it. According to James when the idea of “Hey, lets manipulate Joseph’s brothers to throw him in a whole and leave him for dead or better yet sell him into slavery…” “approches” the divine mind it is identified as the evil plot that it is and never tempts the divine mind much less is contemplated and brought to fruition. God does not need to contaminate Himself or dirty His hands with such evil in order to redeem. He just orchestrates the good and perfect gifts that flow from His character. He foils evil plans not participates in them.
Having said all of that I see your point that if God is orchestarting the brothers He is complicit. I just think Scripture indicates that God is beyond all that, and I do not believe the text regarding the brothers implies that God was steering the brothers.
Where things get even more interesting is applying "noncomplicity" to judgment and other texts such as with Pharoah, hardening, etc. But that is another thread.
Blessings
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/11/2004 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Complicity ultmately rests on the concept of "the end justifies the means" which of course got me a whooping as a child when I stole my mom a Mother's Day present and this side of heaven can get you landed in jail.
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/11/2004 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | OK Everyone,
I'm caught up and these are my thoughts, in letter form to each of you.
Dear Sparknheart,
You pointed out the amazing comfort in the verses I shared (Romans 8:38,39). Can you imagine the God of all comfort being complicit in evil? Neither can I.
Dear Meph,
If people are already on an evil "bent" (Joseph's brothers or Judas let's say), God can take the evil that they do and bring good from it. God does not orchestrate evil. He did not orchestrate evil in Job's life, but certainly brought good from it.
God does not have a blue print. That would not fit with free will or love. He does have overarching purposes.
"God sent me" (Joseph) does not mean God caused his brothers to do what they did or even steered them in that direction.
God is more like a conductor. He does not orchestrate evil.
Complicit? No. (my thoughts)
God does not "use" kidnapping or murder - that would make Him complicit and therefore culpable. In a court of law He would be deemed an accomplice. What He does do is bring good out of it.
Dear Spark,
I do not believe God orchestrates. He conducts.
con·duct
1. To direct the course of; manage or control.
2. To lead or guide. See Synonyms at accompany.
3. Music. To lead (an orchestra, for example).
1. The way a person acts, especially from the standpoint of morality and ethics.
2. The act of directing or controlling; management.
3. Obsolete. A guide; an escort.
Dear Meph,
We need to consider more carefully what is meant, what is implied by the words we use and definitely how we apply them to God.
Dear John md,
Amen to Romans 8:28 - exactly why God is not complicit. How can Romans 8:38,39 be true if God is complicit? It can't. Thank you for the explanation. He is the God who fights for us!
Dear John Earp (any relation to Wyatt?)
Thank you. Sounds like a definite caution (the verses you shared).
Dear Meph,
I do not see that quote by Doc about orchestrating as meaning what you think it means. Could you be misunderstanding?
Everyone,
One final thought. We are to be transformed into the likeness of Christ. In being transformed, should we not then take someone's evil intentions and steer them for God's purposes? I abhor that thought. I hope you do too.
God bless. (Go easy on me. I'm a rookie)
 Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/11/2004 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/11/2004 10:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph, (posting this here too)
What are you saying about God? How can someone who is all good, all loving, all powerful, who knows all that He decides to know, who can respond to each and every possibility as if it were the only possibility, the creator of the universe, redeemer, wonderful counsellor, everlasting Father, friend, brother, high priest, living water, bread of life, Alpha and Omega, Prince of Peace... ever...in a million years...in your wildest imagination...be complicit, much less culpable?
Does seeing Him that way cause you to love Him more? To love others more? Does it make Him more sovereign in your eyes? Does it make Him a hand-wringing God who has no choice but to use evil beings to accomplish His purposes, thereby making Him an accomplice (complicit) in evil and therefore culpable (which means He would be found guilty as an accomplice in our justice system)? How does this help us to want to be like Him?
Meph, what is your picture of the Father? Do you see Jesus being complicit and culpable? When? Where?
Is this the God who died as an act of war on our behalf? How could you take the sin of the world and die for it, then use it to accomplish your purposes. It was our sin (evil) that He died for. The death was victory over sin and death and hell. Satan uses evil to accomplish His purposes. God is the antithesis of everything that Satan is. He is completely holy. Is holiness complicit in evil? Is holiness culpable? Is love complicit in evil? Is love culpable? Are we trying to explain God in human terms that fall short of anything that describes Him?
Help me. I don't see the Father, the one who pursues us to the ends of the earth with His great love, as "compromising" that love by allowing it to mix with evil to accomplish His purposes. What is that about a little bit of leaven?
It's late and I may be missing something. I hope not. How does seeing the Father this way help you? How does it enable you to love others? How does it win a lost and dying world to Christ? When is even a little evil ok? Is it ok if it is useful to us?
"Who is this King of Glory who pursues me with His love?" (Third Day)
Is He or is He not - love, unconditional, unfailing, uncompromising, untarnished, incomprehensible but not unknowable. Amazing beyond our wildest expectations. Ephesians 3:20
Complicit in evil. Morally culpable. That sounds like a God who hates evil, but then uses it when He a) has no choice b) finds it useful for a greater good c) decides that a little evil is better than a lot of evil None of these make any sense to me.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne  (Meph, I'm really trying to understand what your perspective is and why difference this makes in how you live your life?)
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/12/2004 3:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by johnmd
Complicity ultmately rests on the concept of "the end justifies the means"
Hello Johnmd,
Once again you deliver the goods. I appreciate your excellent points and sound theology. Can you please expound on the following two points that you touched on earlier:
1. “Even Human nature tells us God would not have to resort to such means. Evil, “residing” closer to “instinct” is much easier to predict than goodness. It takes the power of the Spirit to empower goodness. Evil just happens when one is left to go THERE OWN way. And evil usually happens along a fairly predictable path…at least relative to goodness.”
2. "There is no way God could be tempted to bring the evil into Joseph’s life that the text describes—throw a man in a hole, torment his father with unfounded grief, sell him into slavery, relegate him to prison, bring him up the ladder only to seduce him and throw him back into prison. God did not orchestrate that evil. Man/Satan did. Even our fallen intuition is reviled by such tactics."
I ask you to elaborate on these two points because I have been stuck in the middle of this “complicity thing” due to the extent that evil resides in man. Forget the wrath of God for a moment. I feel God is “involved in evil” due to the extent that He steers evil/man towards the greater good. God/Spirit “steered” at least one of Joseph’s brothers to the “greater good” by arguing with his brothers to sell him as a slave instead of leaving him in the hole to die. Some brothers chose the lesser evil of money/greed over murder. I choose to use the word “involved” and NOT complicit. I agree with you that the “complicit thing” leads us down a slippery slope “the end justifies the means" in which I strongly oppose (see Romans 3:5-8). But I don’t think we can go from one extreme to the other and take God completely out of the mix unless we are talking about hell. If we take God out of the mix He would become complicit in evil by default of neglect. Similar to the way parents are responsible to be actively involved with their children, trying to bring forth the greater good, to help steer them towards what’s best. Yet parents are not complicit when their children go astray, are they? It seems to me that God has to be kept in the mix to some degree when it comes to the mystery of this world and His involvement with “evil” men.
Please correct me if I'm wrong:
Even Joseph had somewhat of an evil streak of arrogance, and he was one of the most righteous men in the Bible. Until our soul is separated from our body at death, we will always be partly of the flesh of this world, all of us. In Christ we die to our flesh but as Paul testified himself not completely until the hour of our physical death.
Thanks and God bless,
Mark
Jo-Anne, I agree. I like the term God conducts better then God orchestrates.
God the maestro, transforming our squeaky violins into beautiful music.
Thanks and blessings.
LFW:
1. God makes the choice for all people. Those not selected for eternal life have grounds for complaint.
2. God invites all but only some respond. Those who don't respond don't have any grounds for complaint, they got what they wanted.
- Albert Einstein, 2004 | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/12/2004 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | moon river: VERY distant relation to Wyatt. He had no children of his own that we know of. The genealogical research seems to indicate that all of us American Earps are descended from one English Earp who immigrated to Virginia in the early 1700s. Now you know probably more information that you cared to know. 
How do the terms, "conducts" and "orchestrates" really differ? The picture I get is that of a conductor of an orchestra.
As to "...but God meant it for good," this statement of Joseph shouldn't be pressed to make it say what it doesn't say. While it can simply be that in this case God moved Joseph's brothers like pawns to bring about the eventual deliverance of the entire family, it can also simply be that God, having perfect knowledge of the present, knew the hearts of Joseph's brothers, that they meant to do something for evil, and God at that point in time began working for good, to redeem the situation.
Even if God worked compatibilistically in this situation, it would not require us to view God as doing evil or being complicit in evil, for the text itself makes plain that God meant it for GOOD. The examples that Meph likes to bring up to indict God as being an evildoer are all non sequiturs. It was not evil for God to allow Satan to test Job. The NT reveals that "the trying of your faith develops patience." So many look at what Job had to suffer as a result, and myopically think, God is somehow complicit in evil, when in fact, the story is as much about God's faith in Job as it is about Job's faith in God.
Similarly, it was not evil for God to smite Miriam with leprosy (temporarily) in order to discipline her (and the whole community by example), any more than it was evil for God to sentence and execute Ananias and Sapphira for their particularly egregious sin against him.
It is not evil for God to toss sinners into hell, either. It would be evil for Him NOT to.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/12/2004 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hell is our choice because sin is our choice, just as rape is the choice of the rapist. God, as Moral Governor of the Universe, is bound by his own law to send criminals against His holy law to everlasting hell:
Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Rev. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Matthew 25:30 - And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Of course, there is a sense in which God does not wish to send anyone to hell:
2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
However, as we have abundant examples in Scripture of people who went against God's will and DID in fact end up in hell, it is certain that many do choose "the broad road that leads to destruction."
Ezekiel 33:11 - Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 3/12/2004 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Let’s go back to page 1, where Mephi says:quote:
The "complicity" idea tells me that God loves us more than God loves staying away from sin. It tells me that God loves us MORE than just trying to exonerate Godself in God's own eyes. It tells me that God loves us enough to be IN the world…and take on what that entails.
. . .
Once I realize that God truly is IN the world working…and NOT ASHAMED to use evil, sinful structures against themselves for redemptive purposes, it forms a natural reframe of how God may work in the world.
. . .
I really think that "IN the world, but not OF the world" is an excellent motif to understand God's complicity with evil structure...
VERY interesting passage in 1 Cor 5:9-13
Another interesting passage on the "IN the world, but not OF the world" motif is John17:14-19:
“I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.”
We are to be in the world but not of the world just as Jesus was in the world but not of the world. What does that mean?
How about another analogy? A master carpenter builds a house in a desolate area where the only building supplies available are in a scrap pile of used lumber. It grates against him to have to work with such inferior materials, and the end result is a house with odd sawcuts and mismatched paneling and siding. While not aesthetically pleasing, it serves the function of providing shelter for the occupant, which was the carpenter’s priority, as opposed to a display of his workmanship. The carpenter may know that being associated with this project taints his reputation: people just aren’t going to understand the extenuating circumstances. But he knows it was the right thing to do.
God is in the business of reconciliation. And evidently, the only (or at least the best) way of achieving this was by entering the world and accepting the consequences. God encounters situations not of his making and uses them for his redemptive purposes. “Complicity” to me has connotations of premeditation: involvement in bringing about evil rather than using pre-existing evil as a “raw material” for redemptive purposes. (In the music analogy, this would imply participation in composing as well as orchestrating a piece of music and conducting its performance.)
Perhaps even more important than finding the right word to describe God’s role in working with an imperfect world to bring about his redemptive purposes is to consider what each of us need to do: what level of “taint” are we willing to accept in working for the reconciliation of people to God?
Mephi, I think that further development of the "in the world but not of the world" motif would be useful, both as it applies to God and to us.
Magneton
We are getting into semantics again. If we use words, there is a very grave danger they will be misinterpreted. H. R. Haldeman
| | Back to Top | | |
| 163 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:48 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 |
|
|