 |
| 
pelty
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 8/9/2004 10:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Boyd addresses the book of Job by basically stressing the free agency of Satan which thereby bypasses God's responsibility. That said, he does not really deal with why God is absolved of responsibility for allowing Job's trials to occur. Any thoughts on this? it seems that Boyd ultimately skirts the issue on this one. Sure, Satan is a free agent, but if God is able to restrict him but ultimately gives him the green light, does God not bear some blame here? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/9/2004 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Pelty.
Try the search machine? There should be a LOT there.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
KPYTA
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 8/10/2004 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
Pelty actually submitted this with reference to God At War, which he previously read and highly recommended, and which we discuss with regularity. I am reading it now, and have just completed the chapter dealing with Job (4? 5? - can't remember).
My problem is that I'm not ready to move on to the next chapter until I get resolution on Job. The aspect of Job that you successfully address in that chapter is whether or not Satan was acting as a free agent or was in God's employ. And that is fine. But the much bigger problem is that Satan asks God if he can horribly destroy the people in Job's family - because God has, to date, been protecting Job and his family - and God says yes. That's the problem - God intentionally drops His guard over Job's family members so that Satan can destroy them. What more blatant evidence against the warfare worldview could possibly exist? How is this not at least equivalent to God knowingly allowing or intentionally authoring the horrific assault on Zosia that you describe at the outset of the book?
So, while I have been wholly on board with your proposal of the warfare worldview, to this point in the book, I am now completely at a loss as to how to deal with God's action in Job, in light of said worldview. I am not ready to leave the Job topic and move on in the book until I have some kind of feasible explanation of Job chapters 1 and 2 in light of the warfare worldview.
Whatever you could provide to assist would be of immense help. I have to tell you that I have been greatly enjoying God At War to date - I even ordered a copy for my dad for his birthday - and I've found the arguments to be well developed and the evidence well-substantiated. So that's why I've found the ignorance of the fundamental problem in Job to be fairly jarring.
Thanks for your help,
Allen | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/10/2004 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by KPYTA
Greg,
Pelty actually submitted this with reference to God At War, which he previously read and highly recommended, and which we discuss with regularity. I am reading it now, and have just completed the chapter dealing with Job (4? 5? - can't remember).
My problem is that I'm not ready to move on to the next chapter until I get resolution on Job. The aspect of Job that you successfully address in that chapter is whether or not Satan was acting as a free agent or was in God's employ. And that is fine. But the much bigger problem is that Satan asks God if he can horribly destroy the people in Job's family - because God has, to date, been protecting Job and his family - and God says yes. That's the problem - God intentionally drops His guard over Job's family members so that Satan can destroy them. What more blatant evidence against the warfare worldview could possibly exist? How is this not at least equivalent to God knowingly allowing or intentionally authoring the horrific assault on Zosia that you describe at the outset of the book?
So, while I have been wholly on board with your proposal of the warfare worldview, to this point in the book, I am now completely at a loss as to how to deal with God's action in Job, in light of said worldview. I am not ready to leave the Job topic and move on in the book until I have some kind of feasible explanation of Job chapters 1 and 2 in light of the warfare worldview.
Whatever you could provide to assist would be of immense help. I have to tell you that I have been greatly enjoying God At War to date - I even ordered a copy for my dad for his birthday - and I've found the arguments to be well developed and the evidence well-substantiated. So that's why I've found the ignorance of the fundamental problem in Job to be fairly jarring.
I've thought of this some too, here's some "ideas", lame as they may be.
God, wanting to create a world of free moral agents, lets the world run on it's own to a large extent. If you want a world of free moral agents, you have to stand back and let the consequences of their choices affect them.
If He were to intervene everytime, why bother with this kind of world in the first place?
If He wanted a safer world, He could micro-manage it, but why bother, just run the scenario through your head God and spare us the faux creation.
Having created a world of free moral agents, they chose to go their own way and Satan is described as the ruler of this world.
Why assume that God's hedge about Job is the defacto standard for all people?
Why not assume that the hedge about Job is due to Job's obedience and righteousness (based on continual sacrifices)? I.E. if you are obedient and "work" with God, He has the ability to protect you.
It's not that God can't protect you, it's that He won't force Himself on you without permission.
Satan's original thought (if you accept the passage in Isaiah that is taken to show Satan's rebellion) is that Satan would try and take control of God's kingdom by force. "I will be like God" he says.
Satan assumes that's how God controls His creation, through brute force.
God is going to teach Satan that He controls His creation, not through brute force, but through influence by love. In other words, God woos people and leaves them the choice to respond positively or negatively.
That's what the battle over Job is about. Satan's charge is that Job loves God for expediency sake. He thinks because God is good to Job, Job loves and obeys God, God buys Job's love.
God accepts the challenge, Job ends showing he loves God for no other reason then God is worthy of being loved. "Yet though He slay me...."
Satan loses. You can't buy real love, it has to be a choice.
All this is mirrored down here. We have children despite the chance they can grow up to hate us. The potential that they could grow up to choose to love us outweighs the risk.
We give freedom to those we love and if they respond in return it's more wonderful than if we were micro-managing control freaks that got obedience through brute force. | | Back to Top | | |
|
KPYTA
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 8/10/2004 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | SOC,
cc Greg
So God is trying to teach Satan, and in order to do that, he must destroy people who love him? He must stop fighting the war (per the warfare worldview of God At War) and permit Satan to win? In order to teach Satan?? He intends Zosia's eyes to be plucked out to teach Satan? Why? Who cares what Satan thinks? Certainly, getting Satan to think "rightly" couldn't possibly be more important than fighting the war against him, could it?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply (and I mean that), but it doesn't align with the warfare worldview proposed in God At War. That's the problem I'm dealing with and why I cannot go on in the book until this is explained.
It would appear that either God takes a break from the war to teach Satan a lesson (your idea). Or God is a traitor to his side in the war, at least in this one instance. And I certainly reject that. Or Augustine and Calvin were right, and God is indeed the director of a great theater, in which the war is really scripted. Which is an unattractive option too. OR the Bible is not reliable on this matter, which is also incredibly unattractive as well.
OR ... Greg (or someone else) can explain God's acquiescence to Satan's will - in horribly destroying people on God's side - in light of the warfare worldview.
And I'm desperately hoping for the latter. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/10/2004 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | pelty-
Go to the search machine. Type in "carlie" and do a search on that in just the "subject only" option. You should get a thread entitled: "Carlie was murdered: Where was God?" There's a recap thread too. Just ignore that one. If you have the time and care too, read the Carlie thread slowly and carefully. You'll find something there to add to the mix in thinking about Job and God's commitment to achieve the greater good in a fallen and imperfect world. My idea is that in such a world fulfilling the highest good in one situation sometimes conflicts with fulfilling the hightest good in another related situation. Even an all-loving God (in my sick view I guess) would opt for minimizing evil and maximizing good. But in a world where the good of one conflicts with the good of another (which I think does happen) God goes with what he believes is the greater good, and that involves God in what appears to be to us a permitting of evil. Job may fall into just such a situation. I haven't thought about it much since that thread.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/10/2004 7:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by KPYTA
SOC,
cc Greg
So God is trying to teach Satan, and in order to do that, he must destroy people who love him?
God didn't destroy anyone.
quote:
He must stop fighting the war (per the warfare worldview of God At War) and permit Satan to win?
Job being tested by Satan is part of the battle. Satan didn't win.
quote:
In order to teach Satan?? He intends Zosia's eyes to be plucked out to teach Satan? Why? Who cares what Satan thinks? Certainly, getting Satan to think "rightly" couldn't possibly be more important than fighting the war against him, could it?
You want soft (filled with impurities) metal or metal that's been purified by fire?
How do you get people who are so solidified in their choices they will only, always choose good, as Jesus did? By letting them go through "the fire" of this world, like Jesus did.
Why did Jesus have to come to earth and be tempted and tired and tortured?
Do you want tomato plants raised in a hothouse or tomato plants that are hardy and can stand adverse weather?
When a criminal is tried in our courts, how many of our courts try their parents as well for being the ultimate cause for them having existed?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pelty
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 8/10/2004 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | Thank you, Tom. I am going to sit on the sidelines a bit as I was really asking this on behalf of KPYTA, although I am interested in the ensuing discussion and to see what Greg has to say... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 8/10/2004 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Here’s maybe a different way of looking at the story of Job. It has to do with God really in real terms having to allow Satan to bring affliction upon Job. But God did make a descion that for us the wraps of the spirit realm are taken off so that we can see the devil in action and to know his true heart and will towards men in general. In other words with the story of Job we see Satan as Jesus portrayed him as the destroyer and the thief. Now I stated that God in real terms had to allow Job to become afflicted. Consider with Peter when Jesus was with him….the Lord stated to Peter that Satan had desired to sift Peter as wheat.
The American Standard stated the word 'desired' would have been better translated as 'demanded'. How could Satan demand something from God? Well when we the members of the human race choose by an act of our will to say act upon the principals of the kingdom of darkness well Satan is the Lord of those principals. Scriptures says for example that strife gives a foothold to the devil. It states don’t let the sun go down upon your wrath and not to give a foothold to the devil . Well then that sounds does it not that Satan has certain rights to do things in our lives if we don’t keep things in line? Well if we look at Peter he and the others were arguing who would be the greatest in the kingdom .
So they were seeking vain glory for one. And also the refused and failed to keep their spirits in fellowship with God through prayer. They slept in the garden when Jesus exhorted them to watch. Well they didn’t have the strength to overcome so Satan had the right [because they were operating within his principles] to enter in, and cause them hurt. Now with Job….was there something maybe that he was doing that opened the door for the enemy to come in? Sure you don’t read about it in the first couple of chapters but I think perhaps the cat is let out of the bag in Job 3: 25 where it states
quote:
25 For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
Well we ask what came upon him? His children were killed. His prosperity was taken away. He got a skin affliction. But notice that it states He feared them first. Why would he fear them first? That means he didn’t have those things happen but he envisioned them on the inside of himself before they occurred! I would say that’s quite interesting. Well I think maybe it was his kids. It talked about his concern that maybe they were partying too much. It didn’t say he knew that they were but rather that he thought maybe they were. Is it possible he might have thought I haven’t raised my kids right and that’s why they’re partying?
And because they are God is going to judge me. I m going to loose all my wealth and my kids are going to be judged? And then God is going to afflict me with some horrible affliction? I don’t know but it does seem the Job 3:25th verse does state t his. So the book of Job might just be written this way that you read along, read along and eventually you see the cat come out of the bag, or in other words you see the reason why it occurred. You don’t get it all in the first two chapters. Well we know that faith moves God but fear is faith reversed, its really faith in the wrong thing…so faith in the wrong thing perhaps will bring about the reality of the thing feared.
God however has not given us a spirit of fear but of love and power and of a sound mind. That speaks against Calvinism by the way. If God didn't give anyone a spirit of fear and they have it the only reason they have it must be because they so chose to entertain fear thoughts of their own free will and violition. If everything is the way it is because God wanted it that way then one could never say God has not given us a spirit of fear. The good thing about the book of Job however is that God has allowed us to see on the other side of the curtain, that the devil is as Jesus stated one who comes to steal , kill and destroy. Nobody can look at the book of Job and ever conclude that the devil has mans best interests at heart. He’s not somebody who wants to be your buddy. He’s a murderous killer and should never be viewed upon as anything different. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
KPYTA
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 8/10/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobber - Kudos on a good post, and thank you. I'm not with you yet, but I want to consider this idea in more depth. I do wonder though, as a father, who *doesn't* fear the idea of losing their children? I do, no question. I pray for their safety and well being everyday, but if you ask me what I fear the most, it is their suffering or death. Isn't that how all humans, including Christians, are wired? I don't (yet) fear for their mortal souls - I trust God in that matter - but I do fear their suffering, because I care so deeply for them. I do wonder how that could justly provide Satan with a foothold. It just doesn't seem that I'm doing something wrong in fearing my children's suffering (although maybe I am).
You also touch on another idea indirectly - that Job's children were living destructively, and that while God was protecting them for a while, it was not incumbent upon Him to do so within the obligations of the spiritual war against Satan. Maybe, if anything, one could argue that their actions accomplished more for Satan than for God and maybe they weren't aligned with God in their hearts. And so, therefore, relingquishing that protection over them would not be unjust/traitorous in light of the spiritual war.
This is a very, very interesting possibility. It is speculative, but it wouldn't be the first time I had to settle for thoughtful speculation to understand the Bible.
My fundamental problem is not with Job's loss of possessions and his skin disease. These can legitimately be matters of testing, although I confess to knowing less about God's "testing" than I should, although I think the skin disease does start to possibly creep into the territory of suffering beyond testing. But I realize that there are other arguments that are made to resolve suffering within the context of the warfare worldview, and I'm not dealing with that at this time. Instead, my concern is with the explicitly allowed killing ("destruction" in my post) of Job's family members. The warfare worldview would generally say that such murder would be a battle legitimately lost by God, while - in this instance - it would appear that God had a choice and he explicitly allowed the killing (which is fundamentally the same as doing the killing).
However, you present the possibility that the family members were wicked and invited their own destruction by their hearts and behavior. And that may be compelling. I need to consider this some more, but you've got some good thoughts here. Thank you.
Sisters Del Cain,
Thanks, too, for the thoughts. I do have to say that God explictly allowing Satan to kill someone is fundamentally the same as Him doing the killing himself. It's the same thing as standing aside a road, seeing a car 5 miles away speeding toward a baby sitting in the street, and waiting there and watching until the car runs over the baby ... when the baby could've been saved with minimal effort. The observer is just as much a murderer as the driver of the car. I don't believe that the God I serve has such a nature.
Your thoughts about the benefits of testing are good. Again, I confess to knowing less than I should about testing, from a theological standpoint. And yet, I'm not sure of two things: (1) that God was trying to test Job to make him a stronger follower - that's simply a hypothesis, without conclusive evidence, IMO, and (2) that God would intend the killing of innocent family members as a way of testing one of his children.
Now, that said, Bobber has presented an alternative hypothesis, namely that they may not have been so "innocent." And I want to have a look at that.
Tom,
Thanks for the post ref. I'll have a look at that in the next few days.
Thanks all,
Allen | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:39 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 |
|
|