a question about trials

[Guest]

Absolutely!

[Guest]

So many points! It takes me a long time to address them all. So I'll discuss just one for now:

As I pointed out, Job saw his trials as God’s testing and refining him like gold (which certainly suggests an ultimate benefit to Job). You may say that Job was wrong. God disagrees with you. God said to Job’s friends, “You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (42:8 ).

I believe you need to revise your opinion on this matter.

I disbelieve that God disagrees with me, and that I need to revise my opinion on this matter.

What was it that all of Job's friends said about God which was not right?
Did they not all say that God was punishing Job for his supposed wrongdoing? Job, on the other hand, showed that God didn't do this to people by pointing out the fact that the wicked live quite comfortable lives without any punishment from God whatsoever.

"Why do the wicked still live, continue on, also become very powerful? Their descendants are established with them in their sight, And their offspring before their eyes, Their houses are safe from fear, And the rod of God is not on them. His ox mates without fail; His cow calves and does not abort. They send forth their little ones like the flock, And their children skip about. They sing to the timbrel and harp And rejoice at the sound of the flute. They spend their days in prosperity, And suddenly they go down to Sheol. They say to God, ‘Depart from us! We do not even desire the knowledge of Your ways. ‘Who is the Almighty, that we should serve Him, And what would we gain if we entreat Him?’ Behold, their prosperity is not in their hand; The counsel of the wicked is far from me. "How often is the lamp of the wicked put out, Or does their calamity fall on them? Does God apportion destruction in His anger? Job 21:7-17. NASB

This was the way in which Job spoke what was right about God --- that He doesn't bring calamity on people (including the wicked) in order to punish them for their wrongdoing.

It couldn't have been Job's statement "When He tries me, I shall come forth as gold, " by which he spoke rightly about God. For the friends didn't speak wrongly about God on that issue. They didn't address that issue at all.

[Guest]

It is very strange to pick out the statement that the rod of God is not on the wicked as the main thing to agree with in Job's many statements—especially since this statement is quite false. There are probably hundreds of passages that speak about God's judgments on the wicked—whether by the flood, by fire and brimstone from heaven, by the swords of Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, etc.

Job was perplexed that the wicked appear to get a pass from God, but, like the writer of Psalm 73, he was being too short-sighted. That God punishes the wicked is a totally established doctrine of scripture.

Job did not say that God does not bring His rod on the righteous (the point you are trying to establish). This was Job's very complaint—namely, that God had afflicted him when he was righteous! God agreed that this was the case (Job 2:3).

I think you are missing the point of Job because you have adopted a strange position that appears to be based upon sentiment, rather than on the many relevant statements of scripture (like the ones I have raised above).

[Guest]

Job was perplexed that the wicked appear to get a pass from God, but, like the writer of Psalm 73, he was being too short-sighted. That God punishes the wicked is a totally established doctrine of scripture.

There's no doubt that the wicked are punished (or more accurately "corrected"), but that takes place in the future when our Lord returns, and when that day set aside for judgment occurs. There may be a few instances in which His judgments fall in this life, but I think they are far fewer than people think. Some Christians thought 9-11 was a judgment on U.S.A. for their wickedness. If so, it didn't deter wickedness in the slightest, since no one but a few Christians believed it was God's judgment. Some Christians, including Art Katz, a converted Jew and powerful, sought-after speaker throughout the world, believed that the Holocaust was God's judgment on the Jews. But the Holocaust had a far greater effect in turning Jews to atheism that it did in turning any of them to the Messiah.

How many of the hundreds of passages to which you refer, concerning the judgment of God on the wicked in this life are recorded as having occurred since the birth of Christ?

I think this is the third time now that you suggested my position if based on sentiment. It is not. For decades, I have been trying to make sense of the reality of the ongoing wickedness of the world from the time of Christ onward, with virtually no restraint. It is obvious that God is not doing much to restrain it. To explain this, many people try to get God off the hook by taking the stand that God is allowing it to happen in order to achieve a higher purpose. I cannot buy any such suggestion. It makes God the author of wickedness, if not actively (Calvinism), at least by default, since He supposedly "allows" it as a means to a higher end. No one is able to say what that end is, or to explain how the ongoing wickedness of man, such as torture, wife-beating, rich people taking advantage of the poor, and parents beating their children to death, can lead to that glorious end.

You suggested that one of my explanations for the problem of evil, namely that God respects the free-will of man does not put God in such a good light since a human father would be considered negligent if he allowed his children to make evil choices based on his respect for their free will. This time, it seems the tables are turned, and it is I who appeal to the great "contrast" between man and God. God values free will in a way which man does not, for free will may be the chief way in which man has been created in God's image. So in a sense, when man is exercising free will, he is exercising the power of God. God values free will even at the risk of man making evil choices. This possibility was there from the beginning when God created our first parents, and sure enough, after a time, they chose to disobey God.

Indeed, God so respects free will, that He believes that with His ultimate judgment on man and the influence of the perfected sons of God, that every individual will eventually freely choose to come under His authority.

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

You asked:

How many of the hundreds of passages to which you refer, concerning the judgment of God on the wicked in this life are recorded as having occurred since the birth of Christ?

The answer is, not many. There was the killing of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:5, 10), and then of Herod (Acts 12:23), the striking of Elymas blind (Acts 13:11), the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt.22:7; 23:36/ Luke 19:41-44)—perhaps a few more on record that I am forgetting. In any case, the question is not very relevant. Most of the records of this activity of God are in the Old Testament, because most of the recorded history of the Bible is in the Old Testament—about 4000 years, compared to about 30 years, in the New Testament. The fact that the New Testament records as many cases over so short a time is indicator enough that this Old Testament activity did not cease with the coming of Christ.

You wrote:

You suggested that one of my explanations for the problem of evil, namely that God respects the free-will of man does not put God in such a good light since a human father would be considered negligent if he allowed his children to make evil choices based on his respect for their free will.

No, I did not make any such point. You are, perhaps, accustomed to atheists and Calvinists making such a point, but I have never made it.

The point I made was not about God allowing His children to exercise free will, it was about God allowing parties who are hostile to His children to hurt His children (whom He did not wish to see hurt, and from which hurt He had no intention of bringing about benefit to them) simply because He wished to honor the free will of the assailant. You (rightly) wish to compare what God does to His children with what a good father does toward his children. In this, you should see the error of your philosophy. No good father would stand by and watch his son murdered or his daughter raped merely to honor the free will of the attacker—unless that father knew of some higher good that would come to his child or his family by his non-intervention. While we cannot imagine any scenario where an earthly father could see good coming from such injustice, God can, and often has seen some good that can come from the suffering and even the martyrdom of His children. This is because the earthly father is only considering this-life outcomes, whereas God makes His decisions based upon desired eternal and cosmic outcomes.

While you do not wish for your view to be called sentimental, if you object to what I have presented here, it can only be for sentimental reasons (if you look at the reasons you are presenting, there is little but sentimentality being expressed in them, in my judgment). You do not have the weight of scripture, nor even that of analogy, on you side in this.

You concluded:

Indeed, God so respects free will, that He believes that with His ultimate judgment on man and the influence of the perfected sons of God, that every individual will eventually freely choose to come under His authority.

If all are ultimately going to be saved anyway, this realization would seem to take most of the horror out of the merely temporal sufferings any of us endure, regardless of short-term benefits or the lack thereof. All people die (more-or-less painfully) after a life of more-or-less suffering. If all then go to an eternity of fellowship on good terms with God, then, as Paul says, "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed" in the next life. If the worst of earthly sufferings are not even "worthy to be compared," then they are not worthy to be used as an argument against the goodness of God, if He allows them.

God does indeed value free will in man, but I find no scriptures affirming His love for free will as I find extolling His love and care for His children.

In an effort to explain the injustices and unwarranted sufferings of this life, we do better to choose a paradigm that has God's love for people (rather than His love for an abstract concept) at its root. Fortunately, the scriptures actually provide this paradigm, and it turns out to be the one that preserves both the limitless power and the unfailing love of the Father.

In Jesus,

Steve

P.S. I will be traveling the next few days and unable to respond further, so I will allow you to have the last word in your next post, and I will consider my case "closed."

[Guest]

Paidion,

You wrote to Steve:

God values free will even at the risk of man making evil choices.

I can certainly agree with this statement, but you went on to say:

Indeed, God so respects free will, that He believes that with His ultimate judgment on man and the influence of the perfected sons of God, that every individual will eventually freely choose to come under His authority.

So if I understand your position, God will not hurt a person in this life, a hurt that might result in eternal benefit, but after they are dead and resurrected He torments (excuse me; "corrects") them endlessly until they repent? And where did you discover the part about "the influence of the perfected Sons of God"? I must say I don't get it. I agree with Steve. It seems that sentiment is the overriding principle at work in your view of God.

I am still hoping to see your response to my earlier post to you:

I would be interested in Paidion's view of the death of David and Bathsheba's first child. How does it fit with the idea that God does not cause the death of a child to discipline/punish the parents? And in the case of an open-theist paradigm, how did God know the child would die unless He intended to take its life?

It was a short post. Perhaps you did not notice it.

[Guest]

Just jumping in real quick-

in david's case, God punished him for his sin by taking his son. i think there is little doubt about this.

this is a different case than a Godly couple's child dying and then saying "God did it to teach them something." No, God did not do it. But God in his infinite mercy can bring good out of tragedy.

In Joseph's case, it was actually his lack of wisdom in sharing his dreams with his brothers that got him sold into slavery. perhaps if he had kept his mouth shut, it wouldnt have happened. but God still loved him, but let him reap the consequences of his lack of wisdom, perhaps in order to teach him a lesson in this regard. ultimately God did use Joseph for his purposes.

TK

[Guest]

I am not seeing anything that looks like reasonable exegesis on the other side...more like wishful thinking.

I still favor the view taught in scripture, e.g. Psalm 119:67, 71,and 75—

Before I was afflicted I went astray,
But now I keep Your word.

It is good for me that I have been afflicted,
That I may learn Your statutes.

I know, O LORD, that Your judgments are right,
And that in faithfulness You have afflicted me.

[Guest]

Oh .... you're here Steve! I thought you were on the road, and so I didn't reply to your recent post since I didn't really want "the last word".

Homer, I actually did see your post, but I didn't get around to replying:

I would be interested in Paidion's view of the death of David and Bathsheba's first child. How does it fit with the idea that God does not cause the death of a child to discipline/punish the parents?

I honestly don't recall writing that God has never done so. But I seem to be forgetting quite a few things these days. For example, I forgot exactly Steve had written, and he then related what he had really written. Steve, I regret that I misquoted you. So Homer, please quote my exact words if I have written that God has never killed a child to punish his parents. If so, I need to retract those words. However, I think that is a rare event indeed for God to do so. Indeed, I am inclined to think He never does it now under the New Order since the time that the Kingdom was taken from the Jews and given to a nation worthy of it.

The problem is that there are millions of people whose children have died, and who think God killed their child, and they cry out in agony, "God, why did you have to take my child? Why? Why? Why? What have I done to deserve this? Or am I to learn a lesson of some kind from my darling's death? If so, what is the lesson? If You had just told me what You wanted me to learn, I would have gladly learned it from You, and you wouldn't have had to kill my little girl. But now that you have killed her, I still don't know what you wanted me to learn! So won't you tell me what I'm supposed to learn? Please!!!" But in virtually all these cases, God is silent. There are no explanations. And many of these sorrowing parents turn against God. But the truth of it is that in all (or nearly all) of these cases, God had nothing to do with the death of their children. If these parents only had known this, they would not have blamed God, and probably would not have turned against Him.

And in the case of an open-theist paradigm, how did God know the child would die unless He intended to take its life?

Where is it written that God knew the child would die? He did intend to take the child's life! That's why He prophesied in the following manner:

"However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die." 2 Samuel 12:14

In the very next verse, it is affirmed that the LORD (Yahweh) did in fact strike the child so that it became sick.

So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.

When I suggest that Yahweh didn't know that the child would die, I am using "know" in the absolute sense of the word. For God may still have changed in mind in response to David's fasting and lying on the ground in prayer all night. After all, God changed His mind about the evil He said He would do on several occasions in the OT in response to His people appealing to Him. David must also have thought that God might change His mind. Isn't that why he continued in fasting and prayer? But as soon as it was announced to him that the child had died, he ceased fasting and beseeching Yahweh. He washed himself, changed his clothes and worshipped Yahweh --- a quite different response than the many today who imagine that God has taken their child and have blamed God.

So if I understand your position, God will not hurt a person in this life, a hurt that might result in eternal benefit, but after they are dead and resurrected He torments (excuse me; "corrects") them endlessly until they repent?

Endlessly until they repent? Sounds like an oxymoron --- unless, of course, you are using "endlessly" figuratively. Even then it sounds quite odd e.g. "I swung my axe endlessly striking the block of wood until it split."

No, I do not say God will not hurt a person in this life, but I do say it is not His usual modus operandi. In the vast majority of cases, probably over 99.9% of them, He does nothing at all no matter how wicked the act.
Also His healing of His children sometimes happens, but is pretty rare. Have you ever known a person for whom God has restored an amputated limb? I don't in any way affirm that it has never happened, but I have never known of such a case. So God's healings and God's punishing of people in this life are both rather rare.

Yes, it is after they are resurrected that God corrects the wicked.

And where did you discover the part about "the influence of the perfected Sons of God"? I must say I don't get it.

Let's begin with this scripture:

To me, though I am the leaster of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the secret hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. Ephesians 3:8-10

Who do you suppose these "principalities and powers in the heavenly places" are? Such terms are used in the NT to refer to demonic powers.
Paul revealed God's secret plan which was hidden for ages. What was that plan? Even "now" (in Paul's day) the saints could reveal the manifold wisdom of God to the demonic powers.

Now notice verse 11:
This was according to the purpose of the ages which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord

What was the purpose of the ages? The reconciliation of all rational beings to God.

Do we read about this secret purpose and purpose anywhere else? Yes:

For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the secret of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. Ephesians 1:9,10

So God intends to unite everything in Him in heaven and on earth. This is His purpose of the ages. Philippians 2:11 and Rev 5:13 include those under the earth. Who would those be? ---- if not those who will be cast into Gehenna.

That the whole creation will be restored through the perfected sons of God is taught in Romans 8:

18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed into us.

When the glory of God comes into us fully, we shall be equipped for His purpose for His whole creation.

19-21 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Why should the creation wait with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God? Because through the sons of God the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay! Scientists say the universe is running down. Wow! This sounds to me like a reversal of that process..

22-24 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.

We are called "sons of God" now. But what shall we be when we are given full sonship, which is the redemption of our bodies. And what is that? ---- if not our resurrection, or that change by those who are alive when Christ comes --- that change to immortal bodies like His. This is our blessed hope! The very reason we were saved!

I agree with Steve. It seems that sentiment is the overriding principle at work in your view of God.

If you want to believe that, go ahead. But that is not the case. The overriding principle is (1) The upholding of God's character, which is pure love including tough love and (2) the total teaching of Christ and His apostles.