Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?

[Paidion]

Jesus repeatedly encourages them to not be afraid. Are you saying that the meaning of verse 29 is no more than that God will be aware of their situation? Getting back to SueAnn's original post, could we then just inform the sick, hurting, and endangered that we are aware of their situation and say "go, I wish you well"? I do not see what Jesus' point was if He meant that God would do nothing for them.

Homer, beware the strawman.

[Suzana]

Why does God allow so much suffering in the world? Why doesn't God do away with evil? Why does He allow sickness to continue? Doesn't He care? Why doesn't God do something? Why doesn't God intervene? Because this is not His domain. He will not interfere in the affairs of this earthly domain without the permission of those who hold dominion authority here. And who holds dominion authority? Every human being on earth who is a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. God is not to blame for human evil and suffering. We brought these things on ourselves by our own selfishness and rebellious spirit. God wants to help but won't intervene unless invited to do so by Kingdom citizens who know their dominion authority. Through prayer we invite God to act in ur domain. This is what Jesus meant when He said: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Mt. 18:18 Myles Munroe, Kingdom Principles

"Why doesn't God intervene? Because this is not His domain" (?!)

1 Corinthians 10:26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. (NASB)

Deuteronomy 10:14 "Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it. (NASB)

"He will not interfere in the affairs of this earthly domain without the permission of...."

And here was I thinking He is God, sovereign, the reigning King...and all the time he’s just waiting on my permission to act....

Whatever happened to “not my will, but Yours be done”? I guess God must be waiting for my permission first, then he can do his will...wow! all this power, hope it doesn’t go to my head...

"God wants to help but won't intervene unless invited to do so...."

just a polite invitation?
“What about you, Lord, perhaps you would like to have a say in this?”


Perhaps it's the terminology that makes me react this way; there may be some valid biblical principles hidden in there, but the whole tenor of the excerpt really make me feel almost sick in my spirit.

* am I over-reacting? am I seeing implications that aren't there? perhaps I'd better sleep on this.

[TK]

Selah wrote:

Some of this commentary sounds right, but I take exception with the statement that I underlined, with my emphasis added in bold. Is the author saying that if the proverbial child, in our before-mentioned example, is raped and murdered, that those who prayed were either:

(1) not inviting God?
(2) not "Kingdom citizens"?
(3) did not "know their dominion authority"?

A real life case in point: Several years ago, a child was abducted from a nearby town. Within 24 hours, I was on the courthouse lawn with her family and hundreds of citizens from many local denominations as we lay aside theological divisions and gathered for prayer for this young innocent.

For weeks, my "prayer warrior" sisters (within Charismatic denominations) and I fervently prayed for her protection, safety and life to be spared. For months, several churches lifted banners with her name on them, reminding everyone to pray for her--which I personally did faithfully. Finally a year or so later, her body was found. More than once over the past few years, I lifted my voice to God and asked an agonizing WHY?!

Is Myles Monroe, in his quote above, implying that all of us together did not invite God, or that all of us together were not HIS kingdom citizens, or that all of us together did not know our dominion authority?

Is Myles Monroe, in his quote above, implying that I did not invite God, or that I was not one of HIS kingdom citizens, or that I did not know my dominion authority?

I would really like to know because if the end of suffering lay in my will, then please tell me how to effectively reach the intervening hand of God?!

You know-- I read the book quoted from a good while ago- i found the portion quoted on the internet. I think he answers your questions, although I cannot promise this for sure. I would suggest you try to find and read the book- i found it at my library. I do know that the way he presents his case makes sense to me and makes me rest easier about this issue. i am not saying that his view is the absolutely correct view. i am not sure that there IS a correct view that we can learn now. The link I posted to several posts back is to a series of video teaching on youtube in which Myles Munroe talks about prayer as it is related to the issue being discussed. you might want to have a listen- there are 6 separate parts that you will be able to locate readily.

TK

[TK]

Why does God allow so much suffering in the world? Why doesn't God do away with evil? Why does He allow sickness to continue? Doesn't He care? Why doesn't God do something? Why doesn't God intervene? Because this is not His domain. He will not interfere in the affairs of this earthly domain without the permission of those who hold dominion authority here. And who holds dominion authority? Every human being on earth who is a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. God is not to blame for human evil and suffering. We brought these things on ourselves by our own selfishness and rebellious spirit. God wants to help but won't intervene unless invited to do so by Kingdom citizens who know their dominion authority. Through prayer we invite God to act in ur domain. This is what Jesus meant when He said: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Mt. 18:18 Myles Munroe, Kingdom Principles

"Why doesn't God intervene? Because this is not His domain" (?!)

1 Corinthians 10:26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. (NASB)

Deuteronomy 10:14 "Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it. (NASB)

"He will not interfere in the affairs of this earthly domain without the permission of...."

And here was I thinking He is God, sovereign, the reigning King...and all the time he’s just waiting on my permission to act....

Whatever happened to “not my will, but Yours be done”? I guess God must be waiting for my permission first, then he can do his will...wow! all this power, hope it doesn’t go to my head...

"God wants to help but won't intervene unless invited to do so...."

just a polite invitation?
“What about you, Lord, perhaps you would like to have a say in this?”


Perhaps it's the terminology that makes me react this way; there may be some valid biblical principles hidden in there, but the whole tenor of the excerpt really make me feel almost sick in my spirit.

* am I over-reacting? am I seeing implications that aren't there? perhaps I'd better sleep on this.

Hi suzana-

Of course you would have these objections, I had them as well. But please remember that i am only quoting a small portion of his overall thesis. like i recommended to Selah- you might want to have a listen to the youtube link i posted earlier where he more fully develops his thesis.

His main thesis is that when God said (i.e. sent forth his Word) that MAN would have dominion over the earth, this meant that he was limiting Himself, because dominion of the earth was handed over to man. think about it-- God generally does use his servants to accomplish His will on the earth- in the scriptures and particularly under the new covenant. Prayer also takes on new significance with this understanding.

I guess what I am trying to say is not to judge his take on this issue based on the statement I quoted. that is one statement out of good sized book where he develops this further.

TK

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

You have summarized my position correctly.

[steve]

I have not read (nor previously heard of) Myles Munroe, and have not taken time to view the Youtube link, but I do not find his statements objectionable as they stand. The issue is more nuanced, in my opinion, than this paragraph would reveal, but he may provide the necessary qualifications elsewhere in his presentation.

Munroe's thesis is pretty close to the way I explain the value and the necessity of prayer. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's; but the earth He has given to the sons of men" (Psalm 115:16). There is a dominion of some sort that God has delegated to humans (Genesis 1:27-28), though this cannot be thought to interfere with God's sovereignty, but, rather, to involve cooperation with it.

What I mean is that there appears to be some measure to which God's activities are limited by the limited cooperation of men, who neglect prayer and lack faith. Therefore, Jesus was limited in how many miracles He could do in Nazareth, by the lack of their faith (Mark 6:5-6). Also, James suggests that some things that God would have done are left undone by our failure to pray (James 4:2).

But our prayers by themselves do not rule the world—God does. Our prayers, if I understand correctly, are indeed a means of "inviting" God's intervention in the affairs of mankind. However, our prayers are not sovereign. They are still conditioned by "thy will be done" (Matt.6:10; 26:39/ cf. James 4:15).

To me, the bottom line is that some things God wishes to do may not occur because He awaits our cooperation in prayer—but some requests for which we pray may still be denied, if they do not conform to God's wiser plans.

Daniel's deliverance from the lions and the deliverance of Peter from prison seem to have come as a result of prayers. On the other hand, other Christians died in the mouths of lions and perished in prisons, without deliverance, even though we can assume that similar prayers may have been offered on their behalf. The three Hebrew children were delivered from the flames, but Polycarp had a dream convincing him that he should die as a martyr and be burned at the stake. The latter understood his martyrdom to be the will of God (as Jesus viewed His own death); but the Hebrew children did not know the outcome in advance of their ordeal, and were prepared for the worst (Dan.3:17-18). In my opinion, their resignation to either option (perishing in flames or being delivered) is the proper attitude for all believers. God may deliver, or He may not...that is His prerogative, not ours. Ours is to be faithful.

Paul's incarceration at Jerusalem was predicted by a genuine prophet (Acts 21:10ff). Paul's friends, based upon this prediction, urged him not to go to Jerusalem, so as to avoid this fate. Paul, however, believed it to be the will of God that he should suffer such injustice at the hands of the wicked—even to the point of being martyred (v.13). While some may justly argue that Paul was mistaken about this being the will of God for him, one thing is undeniable: Paul's theological understanding allowed that it might be God's will for him to suffer injustice at the hands of rebellious sinners (which has been my thesis throughout this thread, and is seemingly denied by Paidion—since Paul's sufferings, if approved by God, would constitute "child abuse" by Paidion's definition). Interestingly, Paul's companions shared this same theological commitment, because, when they found Paul obstinate, they knew he was going to this fate, and simply said, "The will of the Lord be done" (v.14). Clearly, they saw the "child abuse" to which Paul was going to be subjected as "the will of the Lord."

It is interesting that, on one occasion, God delivered Paul and Silas from prison by sending a miraculous earthquake (Acts 16), but at a later time, God let Paul suffer the injustice of a prolonged incarceration (over four years) without sending such deliverance. Was the latter a case of deficiency in the prayers of Paul or others? I seriously doubt it. It is just part of the whole fabric of scriptural (and subsequent) history, in which God intervenes in answer to prayer, when He wishes to do so—and does not intervene in answer to prayers when it is not HIs will to do so.

The fact that God intervenes at some times proves that such interventions are well within the scope of His options. This should comfort us to know, because it means that, when He does not intervene, He must have His reasons. The Christian does not complain about God's choices in such matters. Just knowing that any given unrelieved trial exists by the choice of a Father who has all things under His control and makes all of His decisions "according to the counsel of His will" (Eph.1:11) is comfort enough for all who have made the transition from caring about their own will being done to desiring only that God's will be done. This is what is meant by the requirement that one must "deny himself, take up his cross, and follow [Jesus]" (Mat.16:24). No one can be regarded as what the Bible calls a Christian without having met these conditions.

Now, I suspect (but am not certain) that Paidion will agree that it is sometimes the will of God for Christians to seal their testimony in blood. I assume that this would not be controversial. If so, then we would acknowledge that Christians, at least, may sometimes be delivered over to severe suffering within the will of God. If we allow this much, there is no logical barrier to extrapolating the following: If my sufferings may bring glory to God and benefit to myself (as the Bible clearly, and often, declares to be the case), might it not be that the sufferings of some non-christians may be similarly intended by God for the glory of God and for the ultimate spiritual benefit of those sufferers?

It is an incontrovertible fact that many who now serve Christ were converted as a direct result of having suffered some crushing calamity in their lives. Was this not a good development, then? They would think so! If so, then why would it be strange to suggest that the very calamity that brought them to God was, in fact, actually intended by God to bring about this very result? A person with Paidion's theology cannot allow this without entering upon a very slippery slope!

[TK]

well said, steve, as usual.

TK

[SteveF]

Steve wrote

The issue is more nuanced, in my opinion, than this paragraph would reveal, but he may provide the necessary qualifications elsewhere in his presentation.

Steve, I agree with you. It is more nuanced. The statement of Myles Munroe, at face value, reminds me of the Word of Faith teachers. I was exposed to them in the mid 80's and I know you were exposed to them long before I was. As I recall, they would make a statement exactly like the one TK posted and build a theology around it. What they failed to do, IMO, is provide the broader biblical insight and perspective you provided in your post. The result was a theology that diminished one's view of God IMO.

Not having heard Munroe's comments in context, I don't know what his exact view is. I do know that I like your perspective.

SteveF

[steve]

For those who are gluttons for punishment (meaning ready to read a really long treatment) there is a lengthy response that I wrote to a former minister who had backslidden because of his struggles over the area of suffering (not his own, necessarily, but sufferings as a philosophical stumblingblock). This is posted at our old forum, at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=382 . It may have been brought over to this forum as well, but I was not able to easily locate it here, for some reason.

[TK]

SteveF wrote:

The statement of Myles Munroe, at face value, reminds me of the Word of Faith teachers. I was exposed to them in the mid 80's and I know you were exposed to them long before I was. As I recall, they would make a statement exactly like the one TK posted and build a theology around it. What they failed to do, IMO, is provide the broader biblical insight and perspective you provided in your post. The result was a theology that diminished one's view of God IMO.

I was introduced to Munroe's teaching by a friend ayear or so ago- i have read three of his books- "Rediscovering the Kingdom", "Kingdom Principles" and "Understanding the Purpose and Power of Prayer: Earthly License for Heavenly Interference."

I would be very wary indeed if i sensed word of faith type teaching being presented. I honestly did not sense that or I would have stopped reading. Of course, I may be naive but i think that i am able to smell a rat. He may have touched on prosperity a couple of times but it was definitely not the focus of what he was trying to present. I am sure that he is on the charismatic side of things, but I could not place him in the same file as Copeland and his ilk. But like I said, I dont know tons about Myles Munroe so I could be dead wrong. but what i have been exposed to did not raise major red flags.
TK