 |
| 
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 9/6/2002 12:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | I've just finished reading "Satan and the problem of evil" and found it very intriguing. I know very little about theodicy but the subject is facinating.
Dr. Boyd's proposition that complex variables constrain a morally sound God's activity in the world is convincing. I do, however, have a question concerning the Gospels' depiction of God incarnate. Jesus was allowed the capacity to allieviate sickness and suffering wherever He encountered it. I am unaware, although my knowledge of the Bible is definately not perfect, of ANY instances where Jesus was unable to heal due to His integrity. When asked, He healed. Demonic (or human for that matter) wills were unimportant to Him in this matter. Why is it different for God? Last night I was asked to remember the 7 year old son of a Pastor in my prayers. His name is Seth. He has leukemia, among other problems. His outlook is very poor. I understand that death may open a realm of pleasure to him we can't imagine, but in the present his existence is pure suffering. There are many sincere, believing Christians petitioning God on his behalf. God, as yet, hasn't acted. Very different from the Jesus of the Gospels. This is one example among many. I'm sure we all have experienced similar situations. Perhaps this is an issue related to Christology. Perhaps suffering isn't evil, only unpleasant. Perhaps God really is unmoved, or impotent or indifferent or ...?
I really don't want to dis God here, whatever He is , I am insignificant in comparison. Any help you can give would be appreciated. One's concept of God is certainly influenced by one's percieved relationship between God and evil.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 9/9/2002 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Matthew 4:23,24
"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, the epilectics and the paralytics, and he healed them."
Now I know I'm not the only one who has noticed this apparent incongruity between God the father and Jesus. I would really like to hear from someone who holds to the warfare theodicy above address this. Maybe I'm out to lunch here and missing something obvious. Is it possible for the different persons of the trinity to have differring personalities. Is Father God the repository of practicality and Jesus the seat of sentiment? Is this idea heretical? Why is Jesus' integrity not theatened by his apparent disregard for wills other than his father's? I think Dr. Boyd's explanation for God's sometimes puzzling inaction is well thought out but I would like to incorporate Jessus' ministry as well. Where am I going wrong? Why does God ask us to trust in Him that He may "prove Himself strong on our behalf", and then often not respond to situations Jesus (in his earthly ministry) would have? Is the fault in us? How do we differ from 30AD Syians? You may be aware of my lean toward Deism, I'm still a wannabe Theist.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 9/9/2002 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hadn't thought of this before. I think it's a sound argument. If Jesus is how we should understand God, why doesn't God heal all diseases *now*? Why could Jesus? The Gospels certainly give the impression not of a warring Jesus, but as an all-effective except in very rare instances. If He was, why not God? Are we to believe that Jesus was more efficacious in fighting demons than the Father can be?
I'd encourage you to keep bringing this type of thing up here. I'll have to go to SaTPE to see how Boyd addresses this issue.
By the way, how do you want people to address you here? as "new"? ANB?
Terry
"Be God's"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 9/10/2002 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Terry:
How about you call me "newbe". Regarding Jesus' earthly ministry, he was truly "restorative" in all aspects of the word wasn't he? While the Father did send him here, he seems almost the antithesis of the God represented in much of the Old Testament. You know, the war-like, enemy destroying, plague inflicting etc. God of the Israelites. All of those morally uncomfortable tales with youths being eaten and babies taken and such. Jesus was so different. I think of Satan's attempts at the temptation of Christ and I think if Satan were really on the ball he would have tempted Jesus with something truly seductive to him like "Heal all those I have afflicted and show yourself to be the Christ". I guess the trouble is Jesus probably would have.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 9/10/2002 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry, one other thing- do you think it possible that Jesus' humanity is the cause of the difference? Maybe his earthly compassion is just symptomatic of human weakness? Something God is not afflicted with.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/10/2002 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm going to say in very small letters that I've always been seeing the attention placed on God and what God can or can't do, so as to be fair. I'm becoming of a mind to consider strongly that this attention is actually rooted in a defective and unbiblical anthropology. More another time.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/10/2002 9:59:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 12/27/2002 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Comments for Newbe: I haven't yet read Dr. Boyd's book. But just some thoughts:
I believe that Jesus' healing ministry has at least a 2-fold purpose. It not only is to show God's compassion for humanity, and to reflect His desire for the eventual healing of Mankind, both spiritually and physically, but also is for confirmation of who He is as Messiah and Savior of Mankind by the fulfillment of OT prophecies.
Jesus responds to John the Baptist's question as to His identity: "Go tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them. Blessed is the one who takes no offense at me." Luke 7:22.
Isa 35:5-6; 26:19; 29:18-19; 61:1 all prophecy the nature of the time of the coming of God's salvation. Jesus' answer does not acknowledge a title of Messiahship, but points to the exact thing that John, in His Jewish Knowledge-base of prophetic scripture, needed for confirmation: that was the nature of Jesus' works which was the healing of the blind, lame, and lepers, the deaf, and the raising of dead. This proves the prophecies as to the nature of the time of the Messiah's coming.
quote:
Newbe: Regarding Jesus' earthly ministry, he was truly "restorative" in all aspects of the word wasn't he? While the Father did send him here, he seems almost the antithesis of the God represented in much of the Old Testament. You know, the war-like, enemy destroying, plague inflicting etc. God of the Israelites. All of those morally uncomfortable tales with youths being eaten and babies taken and such.
COMMENTING ON THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HIS SEEMINGLY HARSH TREATMENT OF THE PEOPLE:
quote:
Archeological discoveries in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria confirm the Bible's descriptions of ancient Mideast society. The countless gods of the land reflected the dark side of human nature. Fertility cults institutionalized male and female prostitution. Child sacrifice was used as a way of pleasing the gods, the chief of which was the sun-god, generally known as Baal or "lord."
AND
From the very beginning of Israel's campaign to conquer the land, God gave the Canaanites reason and opportunity to flee. He made sure they heard about the coming of the Israelites and filled them with terror. Even though, from God's point of view, they had polluted the land and forfeited their right to live in that region, the Lord of the Old Testament gave them an opportunity to retreat. When they chose to resist the God of the armies of Israel, only then did God demand the destruction of entire communities
I think that because we are unaware of God's compassion on the enemies of Israel, and thus enemies of God, and their total depravity in spite of God's compassion, we underestimate the evil and the possibility of its spread to other people at the time.
Just some thoughts,
SIM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/27/2002 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I think it's important to consider two things: first, that God ALWAYS acts first in view of His purposes; and second, He acts in view of His love for us. Never the reverse in order.
With this in mind, if God was healing through Christ, and that being a lot of healing, it was first to serve His purpose, then in compassion for the human dilema (is delema with two ms?).
If God is not healing much today (at least in this country), then maybe it is because it does not serve His purposes at their best. Othwerwise He would. If it is, say, the country's sin that keeps God from healing us Christians, then it serves His purposes best to not heal; this may not really be what's most important and most needed. The exception to this, I think, would be if the Church is not doing enough of something, or is letting to much of something into its life, then this might hamper God's hand in view of the on-going war and rules of engagement that accompany it.
Either way, healing has nothing to do with the integrity of Scripture or our reasons for serving and trusting Him. We don't serve Him because He heals. We may not understand why He isn't healing, but that's neither here nor there. This calls for endurance and patience on behalf of the saints.
For all our needs of healing,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 12/28/2002 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Starkman: I think it's important to consider two things: first, that God ALWAYS acts first in view of His purposes; and second, He acts in view of His love for us. Never the reverse in order.
Just some thoughts:
I agree with you, and we have to be humble enough to acknowledge that in spite of the appearance of evil, God's purposes are always for the highest good, whether pain and suffering are used or not. And don't you think that when God acts for His purposes, that in the long run it is the most loving act for us, whether in this life or the next?
The bottom line in my thinking is that IF God's purposes are not to be thwarted by Man's free will, He must be sovereign to the extent that that may occur. That's not saying that He has not provided freedom within this parameter, for us to be able to affect the future in a meaningful way.
I can give my own children freedom within bounds, so why couldn't an all loving Parent do the same?
Still wondering,
SIM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/29/2002 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | A few reflections
* Scripture does say that Jesus COULD DO no miracles in Copernium "because of their unbelief" (Mk 6:2 I believe).
* At another point it took several attempts for Jesus to heal a man of blindness. No explanation is given.
* Jesus always said things like "You're faith has made you well." When there was no faith, even JESUS couldn't heal (see above).
* The point of the Gospels is to exalt what Jesus DID DO, not what he COULDN'T DO -- so its not surprising we don't have more failed attempts at healing.
* I believe Jesus' extraordinary power in healing was a testimony not to his DIVINITY, but to his perfect HUMANITY. After all, he said that WE could and should do greater works than he did (Jn 14:28 I believe). If WE were walking in perfect union with God, we would have much greater capacity to heal and deliver than we do, and we would be led to those people who are situated such that a healing and deliverance is possible.
* I am hesitant to conclude that the reason we don't see more healing today in Amerca is because it doesn't suit God's purposes. Nothing in the ministry of Jesus or the early church supports such a conclusion. I rather think it has to do with our lack of faith, our cheap religion, a "Persian-type principality and power stronghold on our country, our sin, etc...
For what its worth. Good question newbe.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/29/2002 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc said, I am hesitant to conclude that the reason we don't see more healing today in Amerca is because it doesn't suit God's purposes. Nothing in the ministry of Jesus or the early church supports such a conclusion. I rather think it has to do with our lack of faith, our cheap religion, a "Persian-type principality and power stronghold on our country, our sin, etc... Bold Keith's.
I should have written what I did better. What I've highlighted in bold, with the exception, perhaps, of "Persian-type principality, are the things that very well may hinder healing today. It wouldn't suit God's purposes to heal if we are, say, in great sin as a country or church. It wouldn't be His purposes to heal if we lack faith--assuming that God could heal, say, me, though my faith is low but someone else's is high and they're praying for me. It could cause more harm to me to get my cake and eat it too rather than have to get my faith right, my sin extracted, my life right with God. That's more of what I meant. Of course it's God's will to heal in the general sense, but like a parent it may not be His will in a given particular. Hope that clears things a bit.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/30/2002 4:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Whoa, I just posted today (the post above)--today being the 30th--and it's showing it as the 29th! (Rod Serling standing in the background with Twilight Zone "do-do-do-do" music going!)
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 12/30/2002 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I am hesitant to conclude that the reason we don't see more healing today in Amerca is because it doesn't suit God's purposes. Nothing in the ministry of Jesus or the early church supports such a conclusion. I rather think it has to do with our lack of faith, our cheap religion, a "Persian-type principality and power stronghold on our country, our sin, etc...
Even after the ascension, this holds true in the first century.
>In Acts 3, Peter and John heal a beggar outside the temple gates....When responding to the "utterly astonished" crowd in Solomon's Portico, Peter responds, " Why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk....and by faith in his name, his name itself has made this man strong, whom you see and know; and the faith that is through Jesus has given him this perfect health in the presence of all of you."
"And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth." Kahlil Gibran from THE PROPHET | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/30/2002 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Issues like the incarnation often rouse up mention of "square circles." Recently I read this:
quote:
Hick writes: "for to say, without explanation, that the historical Jesus of Nazareth was also God is as devoid of meaning as to say that this circle drawn with a pencil on paper is also a square." And, Hick states that "squareness and roundness . . . cannot both characterize the same plane figure."4 The doctrine of the incarnation is not, however, a matter of fitting different shapes into the same space. To say that God cannot incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth because Hick doesn’t understand how this could be, is to say a great deal about both God and humans. For one thing, Hick is implicitly saying that God and humans are mutually exclusive beings. Though it is true God is ontically distinct from his creation, it is not logically impossible for both ontologies to reside in one person. If God was indeed incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, then, regardless of human comprehension, that is what God could and did do.
However, it would appear that Hick is confusing categories, viz., numerical identity versus ontological identity. At Nicea (325 A.D.) Athanasius fought relentlessly for the notion of "consubstantiality" between the Father and the Son. That is, there is a numerical unity of substance (hence, homo-ousious) between God the Father and God the Son, yet the Father is not numerically identical with the Son. The seemingly logical absurdity that Hick insists upon is better understood in terms of "mystery" whereby the definitive locus for knowing God is in Jesus of Nazareth, though our understanding cannot fully comprehend it.
and a bit later...
The doctrine of the incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth would be a logical absurdity if one were to assert that Jesus both had the essential attributes of deity and, at the same time, did not have the essential attributes of deity. However, the position which upholds the Chalcedonian confession is that some of Jesus’ attributes were divine and some were human. Contradictory statements are not the same as complex propositions, or sub-contrary relationships.
and returning to the subject of Geometry
quote:
As for the circle-square analogy, the response by Gordon Lewis merits repeating.
As a circle encompasses a square the two figures together form a more complex geometrical design. The whole complex pattern has two natures with both the attributes of the circle and the attributes of the square. We need not contradict ourselves in reference to the complex design if we affirm that some of the attributes of the complex design are those of a circle and some those of a square. The holistic unity of the design is not thereby divided. The two "natures" need not be confused. The circle remains a circle; the square within it remains a square. The one, "circle-square design’ has two distinct natures. We can speak without contradicting ourselves of their essential differences as subcontraries.6
The author (Paul Adams) of the article the above is from www.tmch.net/christcalcedon.htm. He quotes Thomas Morris:
quote:
"For God the Son to become human, he thus had to take on a human body and a human mind, with all that entails. He [as God the Son] did not have to become a created, contingent being. He [qua God] just had to take on a created, contingent body and mind of the right sort. And so he was born of Mary the virgin and lived a human life. . . . God the Son’s taking on of a created, contingent body and mind does not entail that he himself was a created, contingent being . . . his taking on of a body and mind limited in knowledge, power, and presence does not entail that he himself, in his deepest continuing mode of existence [as God the Son], was limited in knowledge, power, or presence.21"
(During all this there is talk of "merely human" contrasted with "fully human" -- But I personally don't think that is a necessary thing to give attention to.)
THE CRESCENDO IS THIS (BELOW):
quote:
...it is important to show that while God the Son is a person who assumed a human nature, this is not to say that God the Son was a human person. The eternal Logos, as the principle pre-existent subject (Jn. 1:1), is God the Son who took on and sustained a human nature (Jn. 1:14). Still, Jesus was human, but not only human. He was a divine person who took possession of a fully human nature. In addition, there is some notable difference between the notions of a ‘human person’ and a ‘person who is human.’ The orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation claims that Jesus of Nazareth was a divine person who took on a human nature, not a human person who took on a divine nature. His complex ontological constitution consists of a divine person that assumed, at some point in history and now sustains, a particular human nature. And, if the divine person sustains Jesus’ human nature, it is not too difficult to opt for Jesus possessing a contingent (viz., having-a-beginning-in-time) human nature.
Keeping THIS straight helps immensely!
(As an artist, I do wonder what the drawing Gordon Lewis had in mind when he described: "a circle encompasses a square the two figures together form a more complex geometrical design". But as a Christian, I REALLY WONDER about what Jesus, God incarnate looked like. And I wonder whether he had is Mother's eyes. And along that line, I wonder--since half of his DNA was "incarnate by the Holy Spirit"--what other physical and behavioral human traits He had. I've noticed in my nephew traits he and I share in common: he didn't "get them from me" even though it seems that way. What else was put "into the mix." I just wonder!)
Al
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 12/30/2002 11:42:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:36 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 |
|
|