 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/24/2002 10:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | I don't have his permission to quote his stuff here, but a friend of mine is writing a commentary on Job. I thought I'd float out four theological truths he discerns from the prologue:
(1) Satan wants to undermine our faith/commitment.
(2) God grants Satan limited power to operate in our lives.
(3) Satan’s work is ultimately the work of God.
(4) God aims to sustain and strengthen commitment, and so magnify his worth in our lives.
Comments?
Tom 
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/26/2002 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | | #1 and #2 look fine to me.
#3 seems to stand in tension with Satan's "roaming to and fro on the earth," his NOT being invited to the heavenly council (he just shows up) and his attacking God's mode of providence in Job. Even if it were consistent with the prologue of Job, however, we'd need reason to universalize this prologue to cover everything Satan does. And if we DID say that everything Satan does is ultimately the work of God... well then, we ought to be thanking Satan, I suppose, for Zosia getting her eyes plucked out -- or, if this disposition is difficult, at least blaming God.
#4... don't know if Job's murdered kids would agree that their commitment and strength was strengthed by this episode. Also, if combined with #3, it means that everything Satan does is to strengthen and sustain our commitment to God. But I thought #1 ruled this out? How can Satan seek to undermine our faith while also, as the vehicle of God, be working to sustain our faith?
Of course, here we will get the standard argument that "what the enemy (being used by God) intends for evil, God (using "the enemy") intends for good" -- along with all the "primary" and "secondary" causation distinctions theological tomes are full of. So we end up with the conclusion that God (primary cause) seeks to sustain our faith by using a being (secondary cause) who seeks to undermine our faith -- and, no doubt, "in such a way" (as the Reformed Confessions put it) that Satan is EVIL for doing what God decrees he does, while God is all-good for decreeing that Satan does it.
I have no way of putting any content to these words in my head.
God lovingly despises all married bachleurs.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 10/28/2002 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
#3 seems to stand in tension with Satan's "roaming to and fro on the earth," his NOT being invited to the heavenly council (he just shows up) and his attacking God's mode of providence in Job.
Doc,
Could you elaborate on this whole "Satan showing up at the heavenly council" thing? Where did that come from??
In His peace,
Scott
"And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" Philippians 4:19 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/28/2002 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Doc. Here were some of my thoughts on this that I sent my friend:
"I’ll be interested in seeing how you unpack these. Satan wants to undermine our faith and commitment (1), while God wants to sustain our faith and commitment (4). But Satan’s work (1) is ultimately the work of God (3). Isn’t this the same as saying that Satan’s efforts to undermine our faith and commitment are ultimately the work of God? (If not, how is it not the same?) And doesn’t this also end up meaning that though God wants to sustain our faith and commitment (4), he ultimately works to undermine that faith and commitment (3)? How does this avoid giving us a picture of a God who is conflicted within himself? How do your four theological truths not lead to this conclusion? Equally important, in counseling people in how to deal with suffering in life, how does one make existential sense of (3)? How does one demonstrate in everyday life (in opposing evil, in alleviating human suffering, etc.) the belief that all the evil Satan works in the world is 'ultimately God’s work'?"
Truth is, Job really challenges me. I'm struggling to understand it. Doc, does not the prologue challenge a main point of your SPE, namely, that "God always does all God can do to minimize evil" (or was that not a main point of SPE)?
God obviously minimizing the evil Satan is able to bring against Job (with respect to his health, his financial security, and his posterity--children, etc.). God has erected a wall of protection around Job. GOD removes that protection and does LESS than God could do (less than he was doing) to minimize evil. Was God free to engage or not engage in this face-off with Satan over Job? I assume so. So the claim that God always does all God can do to minimize evil is out.
So we add to "all God can do to minimize evil" the qualification "...given the kind of world God has created." OK. This works because it locates the complexities in creation (where you argue they belong) and not in God.
Then we have the thread on, what is it?, "Love and Torture"? I'll have to review it. I remember leaving that thread (because of my schedule) with the thought being put forward that the qualification "...given the kind of world God has created" be enlarged to include, "...given whatever unseen purposes God might want to fulfill." In the end I felt like we had qualified omnibenevolence so much that it was not very recognizable.
Now, the prologue of Job seems to me to rule out gratuitous evil. Why posit gratuitous evil if God permits evil in the course (for the purpose) of settling a cosmic score with Satan, proving to the angelic assembly that his way of running the universe is right? We could simply dump all otherwise unexplicable evil right here in this category, e.g., something's going on in heaven between God and Satan. Now, this may seem to be the same as you GAW thesis, except that Job seems to encourage us to concede that some evil takes place becasue God expressley and purposefully permits it for his own reasons. The reason in Job is NOT that God permits some lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. The evil God permits in chs. 1 and 2 is not designed to avoid a greater evil. It's permited to demonstrate a greater good.
1. What need is there for gratuitous evil now?
2. If God does not always do all God can to minimize evil, then have we not abandoned (or significantly redefined) omniscience?
3. I don't know what 3 is.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/28/2002 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, rather than a long quote (Gratitude for same can be translated into a donation, to the ministry of this board, in 4 equal payments.), I'll try and find the thread where I quoted Evdokimov's mention of Kierkegaard and Jung. Point being, that it is a DRAMA -- in that view. And Job's "Redeemer" is the one who "argues against" the monolithic "Yahweh." I like the idea that it is a drama with a message.
Al
LINK: Job Questions....God Answers www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=896&FORUM_ID=16&CAT_ID=5&Topic_Title=Job+Questions%2E%2E%2E%2EGod+Answers&Forum_Title=Theological+Q%26A
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=896&FORUM_ID=16&CAT_ID=5&Topic_Title=Job+Questions%2E%2E%2E%2EGod+Answers&Forum_Title=Theological+Q%26A
I placed in bold these bits:
quote:
"the pious man is not one who acknowledges his guilt before God, but one who, like Job, fights for God against God"
"God, himself lies on Job's pallet to bring Job His answer"
"God experiences in Himself what Yahweh had inflicted upon his servant Job"
"The true greatness and sovereignty of God lies in the transcendence of His own transcendence."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/10/2004 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Al2Si2H4O9
Tom, rather than a long quote (Gratitude for same can be translated into a donation, to the ministry of this board, in 4 equal payments.), I'll try and find the thread where I quoted Evdokimov's mention of Kierkegaard and Jung. Point being, that it is a DRAMA -- in that view. And Job's "Redeemer" is the one who "argues against" the monolithic "Yahweh." I like the idea that it is a drama with a message.
Al
LINK: Job Questions....God Answers www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=896&FORUM_ID=16&CAT_ID=5&Topic_Title=Job+Questions%2E%2E%2E%2EGod+Answers&Forum_Title=Theological+Q%26A
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=896&FORUM_ID=16&CAT_ID=5&Topic_Title=Job+Questions%2E%2E%2E%2EGod+Answers&Forum_Title=Theological+Q%26A
I placed in bold these bits:
quote:
"the pious man is not one who acknowledges his guilt before God, but one who, like Job, fights for God against God"
"God, himself lies on Job's pallet to bring Job His answer"
"God experiences in Himself what Yahweh had inflicted upon his servant Job"
"The true greatness and sovereignty of God lies in the transcendence of His own transcendence."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/11/2004 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | Isn't the incarnation an example of God transcending his own transcendence? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/12/2004 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JET
Isn't the incarnation an example of God transcending his own transcendence?
YES!
But Don't expect to see Gregory find aesthetic satisfaction in that.
The format of a statement like "trandscends transcendence merely recognizes that God is PERSONAL. In Love God can and does choose to not be limited by any humanly defined constraints.
As a Roman Catholic theologian put it, the Western tradition has tended to "begin" by defining God's essential characteristics. The East has tended to lead with the Personal nature of God and his ontology of Trinirarian love.
It is very important to never pit one of these against the other. One should say that the personal is "never antierior to" (God's personal nature never is derivative/caused by his having beein made of something called 'divinity.') essence. But neither is essence separate from the Father's will. We have to take them together.
Rhetorically, the "trandcendence" is humanly metered. God transcends that transcedence.
Perhaps Boyd is forgetting that he would be equally insettled if he found himself thinking for a moment that he could be completely objective (rake the creator's view) of anything. I trust he doesn't do that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/19/2004 2:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg had "great fun" playing with a quote, as a foil for something that he cares about. He did so with flair.
HERE, however, is another instance of similar words ("transcendence. . .transcendence") by the same author: Evdokimov.
quote:
In the mystery of the Incarnation, God transcends his own trandscendence, transcends his own burning holiness (according to some of the fathers, the very word "God" comes from the word "to burn") and makes his deified humanity consubstantial with every human being. This is the ultimate action of the love of God which Nicholas Cabasilas has called manikos eros , the "foolish" or "absurd" love of God for us: "I no longer call you servants but friends..."
quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
"The true greatness and sovereignty of God lies in the transcendence of His own transcendence."
Greg: NO, the TRUE greatness and sovereignty of God lies in the transcendence of his own transcendence of his own transcendence!
NO NO . The TRUEEEEE greatness and sovereignty of God lies in the transcendence of his own transcendence of his own transcendence of his own transcendence.
Or maybe Tillich is correct in concluding that God is so transcendent he transcends God... he doesn't exist.
The point? Its not clear that it means to compliment God by saying he transcends his own transcendence.
Like Lewis said, Unintelligible concepts do not become compliments simply because we ascribe them to God.
Doc  
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/31/2004 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Look at what God does:
quote:
LUKE 1
46And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49for the Mighty One has done great things for me--
holy is his name.
50His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
54He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
55to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/1/2004 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | |
[quote]Originally posted by MephEternal
I don't see why the following is so hard to understand...
God can, when plans require or when situations mandate, allow OR CAUSE situations involving pain, suffering and even morally evil acts to occur for some greater good that WE finite beings may not be able to understand. Because of this, Job and Zosia situations CAN be "rook being sacrificed for the queen" things that GOD is behind.
And unless some foolish human has the AUDACITY to say that they know WITHOUT DOUBT what events are and are not orchestrated by God (like some preachers making the ridiculous claim that God was definitely NOT involved in orchestrated or allowing Sept. 11th, like they knew), feigning some omniscience that they do not have, let this idea just be acknowledged.
Heh
The reason that this is hard for me to understand is because God “causing” evil violates the very sense of justice God instills in man and holds man accountable for. As someone once said, “Why should we let God get away with that which we would put man in jail for?” [Fallen] man certainly did not derive “Justice” off his own accord. Surely the justice which is operative in the Godhead and the justice revealed to man is one in the same. If so, the proposition that God can be just yet “cause” evil is not only counterintuitve but also self-defeating.
I also submit there is a significant difference between “sacrificing the rook for the queen” and “causing” evil. “Sacrifice” in an environment of a very real war certainly may be necessary in order to accomplish a greater good. However, if God did not “cause” the war, God cannot be held accountable for incumbent sacrifices necessary to redeem the war (i.e., He did not “cause” them). Hence, God can genuinely grieve when faced with “unavoidable” prospects such as Zosia or 911. Sacrifice in war is simply the nature of the case which of course does not imply causation.
I cannot imagine ANY scenario with Jesus looking on and not genuinely grieving as Zosia has her eyes cut out in front of her hysterical mother. This scenario brings theology out of the abstract and into the real. That is why, “The word became flesh and dwelt among us.” We don’t have to ponder the “paradox” of a “just” God “causing” evil. We just simply observe how the Word who became flesh reacted to evil EVERY TIME.
I don’t understand your proposition ultimately because there is no example of this perspective in the revealed life of Jesus (i.e., “ground zero” and the foundation from which our understanding of God must begin and never contradict is revealed in the actions of Jesus). Jesus is the “icon” of the invisible God. If what you say is what is to be understood, surely there would be at least one example in the gospels where Jesus “causes” evil to bring good to support the claim with regard to God “orchestrating” evil.
I believe we are agreeing in principle. However, I see a very real distinction between the two scenarios you present as equivalent (i.e., causation and sacrifice).
To God alone be the glory
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/1/2004 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
quote:
If what you say is what is to be understood, surely there would be at least one example in the gospels where Jesus “causes” evil to bring good to support the claim with regard to God “orchestrating” evil.
Read John 11:1-44. The story of Lazarus.
Some things:
Jesus INTENTIONALLY stayed where he was for two more days, even though he KNEW Lazarus was sick...AND that Mary wanted to save him. Jesus WAITED until he died.
John 11:1-4
Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick." When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."
There was IMMENSE suffering and mourning caused by Jesus's delay. Jesus could have went earlier and healed Lazarus while he was merely sick...but he didn't. He allowed Lazarus's family to go through all of that...for a purpose. Now was Jesus uncompassionate in all this? Nope.
John 11:33-37
When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34"Where have you laid him?" he asked.
"Come and see, Lord," they replied. Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
This exemplifies my point. It is possible to say that God can, for God's own purposes, cause situations of suffering and pain for greater good purposes. Does God LIKE seeing people suffer? Nope. But will he stick them out so they do get hurt, if it means accomplishing a divine goal? YES.
What do you think?
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/1/2004 10:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
MephiRead John 11:1-44. The story of Lazarus.
Some things:
Jesus INTENTIONALLY stayed where he was for two more days, even though he KNEW Lazarus was sick...AND that Mary wanted to save him. Jesus WAITED until he died. There was IMMENSE suffering and mourning caused by Jesus's delay.
People die. That's the deal until the eschaton. If God lets Lazarus die (which he eventually will anyhow) so he can raise him from the dead, that hardly parallels God bringing about 9/11 for some good reason. Hardly.
quote:
Mephi: Jesus could have went earlier and healed Lazarus while he was merely sick...but he didn't. He allowed Lazarus's family to go through all of that...for a purpose. Now was Jesus uncompassionate in all this?
Tom: And this is LIKE God orchestrating child-abuse, rape, and the holocaust? I'm missing sum'in bigtime.
quote:
Mephi: This exemplifies my point. It is possible to say that God can, for God's own purposes, cause situations of suffering and pain for greater good purposes. Does God LIKE seeing people suffer? Nope. But will he stick them out so they do get hurt, if it means accomplishing a divine goal? YES.
Tom: It all depends on what you place inside that "greater good purpose." How about God unconditionally determinining the majority of humanity to hell because of the glory he'll receive when he's revealed as a holy judge of sin?
Suffering and pain? Again, there's no problem until you start to define things more closely. Shepherds sometimes break the leg of a sheep that habitually wanders and then keeps the sheep close to him carrying for it. The sheep doesn't wander any more. That's pain. And it's caused by God. But it's a goodness in that it prevents a greater evil. Doctors have to cut to heal and sometimes break bones to reset them. Nobody has a problem with this I don't think. I don't doubt God allows pain, or even causes "pain" in such situations.
Work on that sermon bro. Don't worry about replying. I'll see you in a few days!
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/2/2004 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph
My last post became lengthy. So I left out the Lazarus example as case in point. Hence, I believe we are saying the same thing in principle. Death (of Lazarus or any one else) represents the nature of the case. This is not the case that God willed or caused. God did not will or cause the arena of death. However, (the fallen) arena of death is the arena in which God must work.
Because God is good, we assume that anything that He does is a morally good RESPONSE to further the Kingdom in some way. I submit Jesus is responding to an evil (which He did not will) in the example of Lazarus and not causing an evil by hesitating. Ultimately, it is agreed that finite man can not comprehend all of the variables impacting the circumstances. However, lack of understanding does not have to imply that Jesus’ “causing” evil by hesitating is a valid paradigm for interpreting the passage.
Ultimately, even if I concede your point, redemption of the situation was experienced by all in short order. Within a paragraph or two no one (past or present) is left “scratching their head” as to what God is doing here. Now that distinction is a far cry from the hundreds of casualties of 911 or the countless millions of rape and abuse victims who (along with their families) go to their grave never having any idea of God’s redemptive purpose in “causing” or “allowing” their torture. So, attributing causation of evil to Jesus in this case and failure to concede “the nature of the case” as the cause results in a sort of logical anachronism.
All agree that Jesus “intentionally waited.” However, the point is not THAT He waited. Rather the question is “Why He waited?” Did He intentionally wait as a function of causing an evil in order to later redeem? Or Did he intentionally wait because he had too given all the variables he was confronted with in redeeming the evil situation (which He did not cause) that he was confronted with.
(1) “There was IMMENSE suffering and mourning caused by Jesus’ delay.”
(2) “Jesus could have went earlier…”
These are two assumptions on your part that I do not grant. I can only assume that Jesus did the best He could and that His timing was as good as it could have been all things considered (geography, “level of faith,” spiritual warfare, etc.) in order to maximize the Kingdom of God in the evil situation He was dealing with. “Death” (the nature of the case that Jesus did not will) caused the suffering. Jesus hesitation did not cause anything and hence cannot be properly understood as evil because His hesitation (given the assumption that Jesus is always doing the best He can do) could not be helped given all of the variables of the fallen world He must deal with in responding to evil. Furthermore, Jesus’ “hesitation” did not add to the suffering. Rather, it was the many factors that impacted the situation that necessitated the “hesitation” that added to their suffering.
For what it’s worth, Jesus (via the eyes of faith), in fact did relieve their suffering on the spot when he stated to the messenger from the sisters that “This sickness will not end in death.” Maybe the point of the passage is that we suffer needlessly when we fail to listen to the word of the Lord? So, from the outset Jesus is responding to evil and suffering and doing His best to provide relief
If Jesus has the ability to just do whatever He wants to in any given evil circumstance (i.e., NOT to hesitate) then the spiritual warfare motif in scripture is disingenuous. The war is either real or it is not. The statement of Jesus representing Satan as the “Prince of this world” and Jesus’ refusal to rebuke the authority that Satan daunted during His temptation in the wilderness has no real meaning or connection with what man perceives as real linguistically or otherwise. His prayer “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” becomes unnecessary if there is no real distinction between Jesus’ hesitation being a cause of evil verses a necessity in responding to evil.
I would add one thing to TGB’s shepherd/lamb analogy. The “evil” is the sheep’s “propensity to wander.” “Breaking the leg of the sheep” is a response to the evil not a cause.
So, in a sense we are saying the same thing. I am just uncomfortable assigning causation of evil to God because of the moral culpability implied. Consider World War II. Every allied soldier killed was a murder committed by (“caused”) Hitler. In contrast, German casualties (equally dead) resulted from a response and not a cause. International Law (at least at this point based on Natural law-intuitive to man…based on God’s law-one in the same) draws a sharp contrast between causation and response eventhough the end result (dead soldiers) is the same.
To God alone be the glory,
John
P.S. Sorry for the lengthy response. As Twain said, “If I had more time I could have made it shorter.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/11/2004 1:08 AM (GMT -6) | | good piece johnmd! well said.
Carole, regarding the prologue of Job, I'd make the following points:
* its a fictional prologue to an epic poem. We shouldn't be to quick to read metaphysical details into it.
* the prologue stresses the randomness of the encounter between God and Satan. It wasn't part of a preorchestrated plan. Satan shows up. God asks "where ya been." "running around" satan replies. THEN the dialogue starts.
* the point of discussion is as you state: Are there any truly righteous people? Imbedded in this is satan's accusation that there AREN'T any truly righteous people. And this implies that God is running a Machievellian universe. People are his puppets. So the real question is, Is there any real freedom in the universe? And do people ever serve God by their own free morally significant choice, or just to get the rewards?
* in the context of the narrative, the charge can only be answered by being put to the test. This is the function of the prologue. Its sets up the poem. If God were to ignore satan, or better, blow him away, it would prove to everyone that satan WAS RIGHT.
* So Job gets caught in a crap shoot. And THAT, I submit, is the main point of this profound book. The reader knows about the crap shoot, but the characters in the narrative do not. And THAT is the point -- we are ignorant about the goings on in the heavenly realm, but we are affected by it.
* Hence, when the book climaxes in the two monologues of God, God points to a) the unfathomable wonder and complexity of creation, about which Job knows little; and b) the warfare in the cosmos (Behemoth, Leviathan) about which Job can do little.
* In other words, God is saying that unless you are omniscient and can do a better job than he's doing, DON'T JUDGE HIM (as Job did) or other PEOPLE (as Job's friends did).
"Who is this that darkens counsel without wisdom?"
Blessings
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/11/2004 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
John:
[quote]If what you say is what is to be understood, surely there would be at least one example in the gospels where Jesus “causes” evil to bring good to support the claim with regard to God “orchestrating” evil.
Read John 11:1-44. The story of Lazarus.
Some things:
Jesus INTENTIONALLY stayed where he was for two more days, even though he KNEW Lazarus was sick...AND that Mary wanted to save him. Jesus WAITED until he died.
Hello Meph,
I must confess...it's late and as much as I would love to read all replys, I often have time just to skim over them. I have really appreciated John's replys to what you are saying, but feel compelled to reply to this as well. I am almost finished Satan And The Problem of Evil. Have you read it?
Jesus stayed where he was. But to assume that Jesus stayed because He thought it best that Lazarus die is just that - an assumption. At least that is what I see. The most powerful verse in the Bible is the verse that says, "Jesus wept." I see that as powerful not just because it confirms in my heart the humanity of the Son of God, but because it shows the depth of love and compassion that He has for us. If He purposefully waited for Lazarus to die - then those would, in my mind, be tears of regret. But there is nothing to show that. I believe He would have prevented Lazarus dying if He could, that He would have prevented the pain and suffering of all those who loved Lazarus, including Himself. This is a prime example of the Father doing all He can do to minimize evil and maximize good. People suffer. People die. Jesus was fully human as well as fully God here. Jesus did not heal everyone or raise everyone from the dead. But here we see the Lord's compassion demonstrated and the Father glorified.
This reminds me of the passage in John where the disciples ask Jesus who sinned so that the man was born blind. Jesus response was "no one sinned" That wasn't the cause. God did not "allow" the man to be born blind so that He could later be glorified. BUT...since he was...God would be glorified through this man's healing. And Lazarus. The Father (through Jesus) did not "allow" Lazarus to die in order to demonstrate His power...BUT since Lazarus did die - God would be glorified in raising Him from the dead.
Ok...it's very late and I may be digging myself in a bit too deep here..I think I just hit rock! Meph, these are my thoughts, actually my heart. Jesus is our "picture" of the Father - the imprint of the Father and I just don't see Jesus as waiting and in effect by purposely waiting, causing Lazarus' death. The truth is the Father doesn't always (can't always because of the way He has created) step in and intervene just when we want Him to, but it doesn't mean He doesn't want to or doesn't try. That almost sounds like Ware's criticism of Open View as portraying a hand-wringing God. It's not. As the Father reminded Job in chapter 38 - suffering is not about the character of God. It is about the complexity of creation and about free will and thus the arbitrariness of life.
Time to hit my pillow. God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:48 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 |
|
|