a question about trials

[_Paidion]

Hebrews 12:1-4 tells us that since we have that great group of witnesses to consider, those men and women of faith whom the writer has depicted in chapter 11, we should run the race with perseverance, laying aside every hindrance, and every clinging sin, looking to Jesus, our great example of endurance in his suffering on the cross, discounting the shame. If we consider Him who endures such hostility from sinners, we may, like our great Hero, not grow weary or fainthearted.

Verses 5-13 instructs us that the Lord corrects us and disciplines us. We are not to lose courage when He disciplines us, but to endure it, for our own good, so that we may overcome sin and share God's holiness. Yes, discipline yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. We must walk straight so that what is lame, or out of order in our lives, might be healed.
sons?

There is nothing in this passage to indicate that the way God disciplines us is to kill our babies or teenagers, deprive us of the essentials of life such as food and water, put us into the hospital via an automobile accident (or camel accident), allow people to torture us, etc. To believe such things of God, is the opposite to glorifying God. It is to make Him out to be an ogre, to blaspheme His loving character.

Rather, the author compares this discipline, this training by the Lord with the discipline and training of an earthly father. An earthly father doesn't train his child by killing the child's mother, by applying a hot iron to the child's flesh, by depriving him of food for a week, by turning his best friend against him.

The Father and the Son indwell the disciple. Most of the discipline is not through outward circumstances, but through inner conviction.

This is how God works everything together for good to those who love Him, who are called according to his purpose. [Romans 8:28]. Clearly He doesn't do it through circumstances and events. Many of these outward experiences work the opposite of good for Christ's disciples. Some of these cripple disciples for life, or cause them great sorrow, or lead to their death.

Rather inwardly, God works everything together for good. And in the context, we are told the sequence of that working for good, and the ultimate goal of it all:

For those whom He foreknew he also pre-appointed to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he pre-appointed he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

And to have foreknown some, does not necessarily mean that He knew beforehand everything they were going to do. The Jews foreknew the Apostle Paul from the first. Because of this, they were able to testify that he had lived as a strict Pharisee. [Acts 26:5]

So God's working everything within Christ's disciples for good, toward completion as disciples has the following order:

1. Foreknowledge
2. Pre-appointment
3. Calling
4. Justification
5. Glorification

When we sin, God convicts us. He shows us the results. He disciplines us inwardly that we might bear the fruit of righteousness.

[_Steve]

Though there is, in Hebrews 12, a comparison between the discipline of an earthly father and that of God, there is also a deliberate contrast between "human fathers" and "the Father of spirits" (v.9).

Why the contrast? Because the human father's discipline of the child is restricted to training his outward conduct, inculcating good habits which pertain only for this lifetime. By contrast, the training of the spirit pertains to eternity:

"For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (1 Tim.4:8)

A degree of discipline that is disproportionate to the potential benefit to child is mere abuse—as in the examples given above in Paidion's post. But there is an infinite disparity between what may be considered "disproportionate" if the intended benefit is for this lifetime only, and that which is "disproportionate" if the intended benefit is eternal.

Because of this, we can affirm that an earthly father must not discipline his son by inflicting boils upon him, nor by letting him moulder in a damp dungeon for thirteen years, nor by placing a thorn into his flesh, nor by causing him to be made blind, mute, deaf or lame, nor by having him crucified—but we are told that God has done all of these things, and more, to some of His children for both His glory and for their good (Job 23:10/ Gen.50:20/ 2 Cor.12:7/ John 9:1-3/ Ex.3:4:11/ Gen.32:25).

If we consider the catalogue of abuses that Paul endured (found in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29), and compare these with Paul's statements that they were only "light afflictions," lasting "but for a moment," and which "work for us an eternal weight of glory"(2 Cor.4:17) so that they "are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us"(Rom.8:18), then we will gain the perspective on these trials that Paul teaches.

In light of these things, we might well ask, "What form of affliction might not God use in bringing His many sons to glory?" (Heb.2:10). If we fail to adopt the eternal perspective that Paul advocates, we will be left with nothing but carnal and emotion-based objections to the teaching that all things endured by God's children come to them as potentially beneficial discipline.

"Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:11)

"In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ...Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy." (1 Peter 1:6-7; 4:12-13)

[By the way, we had a similar discussion to this one at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... highlight=

[Guest]

Hi Paidion-

you seem to be suggesting that it is not God that "kill[s] our babies or teenagers, deprive us of the essentials of life such as food and water, put us into the hospital via an automobile accident (or camel accident), allow people to torture us, etc" but that God can and does use these things for good. I may agree with you, but I am not 100% certain.

We live in a fallen world, and very bad things happen to good people. Let's say a young christian mother is killed by a drunk in a car accident leaving children and a husband behind. We have two choices, I suppose. 1) God decided the end the girl's life, for his purposes, and caused it to happen or 2) a drunk crossed the center line and killed her, and God, horrified by this(for lack of a better expression), works to bring good out of the situation as only he can.

In the case of Joseph, I suppose it could be said that God caused everything to happen for His purposes, but I suppose it could equally be said that evil men caused Joseph's hardships, and that God intervened to work things out.

The difficulty, in my view, is distinguising between God "causing" something and God "allowing" something. They seem to be different, but since God is God, the difference may be inconsequential.

TK

[Guest]

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?

[_Paidion]

If there horrendous events already mentioned, are God's discipline upon His children, then it would make sense to conclude that those of us who have not suffered much in this life do not need such discipline, since we are living better lives than those who do. It seem to me that the view could lead to a feeling of superiority in the minds of those of us who haven't suffered much.

However, our Lord made it clear that suffering may have no relation to the sin of the sufferers:

At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did." Luke 13:1-5

If suffering has no relation to the sin of the sufferers, then how can we maintain that God caused the suffering?

TK, I wholly concur that God can bring good out of horrendous events, and often does so for His children, and perhaps even does so for others. This is quite distinct from God having caused the horrible events for the purpose of teaching His children a lesson.

TK, in one sense, I don't think God allows these terrible things to happen to His people. It's just that He often does nothing to prevent them.
I think even that is quite a distinct difference. I think a lot of God's non-intervention is due to His respect for the free will of man. At other times it has to do with not upsetting the stability of the Universe. The Universe is perhaps more complex than we can understand, and so we often don't see this aspect.

A Godly Father may not allow his son or daughter to attend a certain kind of party. But he nevertheless may do nothing to stop them, because he respects their free will, and besides, may want them to learn for themselves.

I hope to be able to say more about this important issue in a later post, and address some of the points Steve made or tried to make.

God bless all of you, my fellow seekers after truth and reality!

[Guest]

...I believe that nothing is required of us other than to be Christ-like in our response to trials...

Thanks Steve. This is indeed a comforting thought ...

peace,

dane

[_Steve]

Paidion wrote:

"If suffering has no relation to the sin of the sufferers, then how can we maintain that God caused the suffering?"

This assumes that divine discipline functions only as a reactive punishment for sin. It is, rather, a proactive training program in Christ-likeness, which involves a series challenges to teach us and test us, even when we are not involved in any particular sin. Ridding us of sin is not God's sole objective. Reproducing Christ in us is what He is after (Gal.4:19/ 2 Cor.3:18).

It is true that the free will of sinners is instrumental in many (perhaps most) cases of the believer's testings. However, God also has promises to keep to His children. I believe those promises include protection from the evils intended against us by hostile free agents, except in cases when God intends them for our benefit.

There is a reason that the first two chapters were attached to the story of Job. They inform us that God keeps a "hedge" about the righteous, except at such times as He intends for them to undergo testing or refining. God is omnipotent and attentive to His people (Matt.10:29-31). Without His permission, the enemies of the believer can do him no harm. If this is not plain teaching of scripture, then there are no plain teachings of scripture.

[_Paidion]

Though there is, in Hebrews 12, a comparison between the discipline of an earthly father and that of God, there is also a deliberate contrast between "human fathers" and "the Father of spirits" (v.9).

Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?

I do not see this as a contrast (deliberate or otherwise). Is it not rather a comparison? Let me rephrase the question, and yet retain the meaning. “If we respected and obeyed earthly fathers who disciplined us, should we not much more respect and obey the Father of spirits who is much greater than any earthly Father?” The question does not suggest that the Heavenly Father is different in kind from an earthly father, but that He is a much greater Father, eg. much more loving and much more consistent.

Why the contrast? Because the human father's discipline of the child is restricted to training his outward conduct, inculcating good habits which pertain only for this lifetime. By contrast, the training of the spirit pertains to eternity:

"For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (1 Tim.4:8 )

There’s no contrast. But the rest of what you have written, as well as the quote, is certainly true. Yet none of that states, or even suggests, to my mind, that the Father's discipline and training consists of imparting disease, causing bone-crushing automobile accidents, or allowing the rape and murder of little girls, in order to discipline or train His children.

A degree of discipline that is disproportionate to the potential benefit to child is mere abuse—as in the examples given above in Paidion's post. But there is an infinite disparity between what may be considered "disproportionate" if the intended benefit is for this lifetime only, and that which is "disproportionate" if the intended benefit is eternal.

Because of this, we can affirm that an earthly father must not discipline his son by inflicting boils upon him, nor by letting him moulder in a damp dungeon for thirteen years, nor by placing a thorn into his flesh, nor by causing him to be made blind, mute, deaf or lame, nor by having him crucified—but we are told that God has done all of these things, and more, to some of His children for both His glory and for their good (Job 23:10/ Gen.50:20/ 2 Cor.12:7/ John 9:1-3/ Ex.3:4:11/ Gen.32:25).

“Having him crucified”? Surely you are not suggesting that God did that to His Son “for His good”? In any case, let’s consider the passages you referenced:

But He knows the way I take; When He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold. Job 23:10

I am surprised you would use this sentence in support of your thesis that God does horrible things to His children in order to train them. The book of Job, as a whole, is an emphatic statement that God does not do such things to His people. Rather Satan did all these things to Job. It would seem that God did not prevent Satan from doing these things, not to train Job, but to prove to Satan that His boasting about Job and his righteousness was justified.

Job’s friends were sure that Job had sinned and that he was being punished. Job vehemently denied that he had sinned, and wished that he had an impartial umpire who would judge between him and God. He was so sure of his own righteousness, that he was certain the umpire would judge in his favour. Throughout the time Job was suffering, he believed that God was doing these things to him even though he hadn't sinned. Job was mistaken in this belief. He didn't know about the little disagreement between God and Satan, and God's decision to permit Satan to afflict Job in order to vindicate His boast.

"But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. Genesis 50:20

This seems to suggest that though Joseph’s brothers threw him into the pit with the intent of evil, that is, to kill him, God had him thrown into the pit so that the ensuing events would save many people from starvation. But does the text really say, “God meant it for good”? The Masoretic text, the late Hebrew text, certainly seems to say so.

According to Wikipedia, “The oldest manuscripts containing substantial parts of the Masoretic Text known to still exist, date from approximately the ninth century CE, and the Aleppo Codex (the oldest complete copy of the Masoretic Text in one manuscript) dates from the tenth century.”

However, the Septuagint, which translated the text from Hebrew into Greek sometime between 300 B.C. and 200 B.C., obviously used a much older Hebrew manuscript. This translation renders the sentence:

You took counsel against me for evil, but God took counsel for me for good, that it might become as it is to–day, and many people might be fed.

This sentence gives no hint of the idea that God had a hand in the things that happened to Joseph. It simply indicates that Joseph’s brothers in taking counsel together to throw Joseph into the pit, did so with the purpose of an evil result, namely his death, or after they decided to sell him, get him out of their lives once and for all. But God took counsel, perhaps with his Son, and/or the angels, to bring good out of that action --- to feed many people who were suffering from the famine.

Unfortunately, the passage is missing from extant Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts of Genesis.

Next:

Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself! 2 Cor 12:7

Well… this certainly sounds as if Satan gave Paul the thorn, not God! Of course, we could maintain that God used Satan in order to give him the thorn. But that is the very type of thinking that has brought about the blueprint view of God’s providence ---- that everything that happens, good and bad, is God’s doing. If that is the case, why are we accountable for our evil works? Would these evil actions not be God working through us?

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.
John 9:1-3 NKJV

If the sentence ends here, then it appears that the man was born blind so that the works of God should be revealed in him. Even if that were the case, one could not infer that all people born blind, were given that condition by God so that the works of God should be revealed in them. The man in question was healed. Since that time, healings of people born blind are extremely rare, if indeed, they have ever happened.

However, it is not at all clear from the passage that the man was born blind for this reason. In early copies of the New Testament in Greek, there was no punctuation. If the Textus Receptus is correct, then the passage could well read:

Jesus responded, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned. But that the works of God should be revealed in him, it is necessary that I work the works of Him who sent me while it is day…”

However, the older manuscripts, including papyrus 66 (around 150 A.D.) and papyrus 75 (around 190 A.D.) have “it is necessary that we work the works.” At first glance, this seems to destroy the reading I just gave. But it doesn’t. For this is not the only time Jesus used the royal “we” when He referred to Himself. He also gave the reason He was being baptized by John as “it is necessary that we fulfill all righteousness” Matthew 3:15.

If we consider the catalogue of abuses that Paul endured (found in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29), and compare these with Paul's statements that they were only "light afflictions," lasting "but for a moment," and which "work for us an eternal weight of glory"(2 Cor.4:17) so that they "are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us"(Rom.8:18 ), then we will gain the perspective on these trials that Paul teaches.

Right. God can use these afflictions to that end. But that in no way implies that God gave those afflictions for that purpose. In no way have I been suggesting that God cannot bring good out of human distress. Rather I am denying that God causes that distress or allows that distress for the purpose of bringing forth that good

In light of these things, we might well ask, "What form of affliction might not God use in bringing His many sons to glory?" (Heb.2:10).

I don’t understand this. Is this a rhetorical question which requires the answer “none”?

If we fail to adopt the eternal perspective that Paul advocates, we will be left with nothing but carnal and emotion-based objections to the teaching that all things endured by God's children come to them as potentially beneficial discipline.

Come to them as … discipline? Then it must come from God, but do all things that God’s children go through come from God? We have already considered the case of Job in which the reason was demonstrating to Satan that Job was a righteous man. The sufferings of the Son of God was not discipline, but for our deliverance from sin. Jesus never tried to comfort the sick by suggesting that their illness was God’s discipline. For example, He didn’t suggest to the woman who was crippled 18 years, that God was trying to teach her something. Luke stated unequivocally that he sickness was caused by a spirit (and not the Holy Spirit, either). Jesus simply healed her. Frequently, Jesus healed people by casting out the demons (not God) who made them ill.

And in what way is believing the proposition that “the teaching that all things endured by God’s children come to them as potentially beneficial discipline” tantamount to adopting “the eternal perspective that Paul advocates”?

"In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ...Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy." (1 Peter 1:6-7; 4:12-13)

When you undergo a fiery trial (perhaps persecution), “rejoice that you partake of Christ’s suffering”. So it can’t be a matter of discipline. For Christ’s suffering was not for the purpose of God disciplining His Son. His suffering was for the sake of others, and so is ours, when we suffer for Christ.

Paidion wrote:

"If suffering has no relation to the sin of the sufferers, then how can we maintain that God caused the suffering?"

This assumes that divine discipline functions only as a reactive punishment for sin. It is, rather, a proactive training program in Christ-likeness, which involves a series challenges to teach us and test us, even when we are not involved in any particular sin. Ridding us of sin is not God's sole objective. Reproducing Christ in us is what He is after (Gal.4:19/ 2 Cor.3:18 ).

Okay, I recognize that discipline goes beyond correction for wrong doing.

It is true that the free will of sinners is instrumental in many (perhaps most) cases of the believer's testings. However, God also has promises to keep to His children. I believe those promises include protection from the evils intended against us by hostile free agents, except in cases when God intends them for our benefit.

I am not sure that “God intends them for our benefit”. However, He may not protect us in order that we may “partake of Christ’s sufferings” in order to be a witness to others, and/or to benefit others. However, I think that in most cases, His not protecting us is His respect for the free will of man. By virtue of the free will with which God has created man, he can act for good or for ill.

There is a reason that the first two chapters were attached to the story of Job. They inform us that God keeps a "hedge" about the righteous, except at such times as He intends for them to undergo testing or refining.

I cannot find in those first two chapters that God lifted His hand of protection from Job in order to test or refine him. Rather, I read that He did it to prove the veracity of His boast to Satan that “there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.” Job 1:8, 2:3

God is omnipotent and attentive to His people (Matt.10:29-31). Without His permission, the enemies of the believer can do him no harm. If this is not plain teaching of scripture, then there are no plain teachings of scripture.

In no way do I question God’s omnipotence or His attentiveness to His people. But I think He seldom, if ever, gives permission to these enemies to harm His children in order to discipline them. Yet, often, or perhaps even usually, He does nothing to prevent them from doing so.

In conclusion, I affirm that the people of the world generally carry out their activities, good, bad, or neutral, without any intervention from God. This non-intervention has no relationship to His omnipotence, but is His choice. The fact that He seldom intervenes in the physical workings of the Universe or the choices of people on earth, does not usually relate either to His punishment of anyone nor the discipline of His children. Rather, He seldom intervenes, in order to respect the free will of man and to maintain the stability of a very complex Universe.

[_Steve]

Hi Paidion,

As I mentioned, we have had this same discussion earlier at: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... highlight=

However, I would like to respond to some of your surprising assertions about the texts I raised. For example, you wrote:

I do not see this as a contrast (deliberate or otherwise). Is it not rather a comparison? Let me rephrase the question, and yet retain the meaning. “If we respected and obeyed earthly fathers who disciplined us, should we not much more respect and obey the Father of spirits who is much greater than any earthly Father?”

It is strange that you say there is no contrast being made between human fathers and “the Father of spirits” here (and then you go and highlight the very phrase that emphasizes a contrast). That there is a difference between the form of the discipline employed by an earthly father and that employed by God would have to be admitted, regardless of one’s theological preferences, since earthly fathers, in biblical times, commonly used a rod—something that God does not literally use. Whatever form of discipline you envision God employing, it will not be a literal “taking to the woodshed,” but will take the form of some unpleasant circumstance in life. I would expect for you to agree with this statement. If you do not, then to what kind of “painful” chastisement is the writer of Hebrews referring? If you do agree that God’s chastisement takes the form of unpleasant circumstances in life, upon what rule do you draw the line as to which “painful” experiences God might use, and which ones are below His dignity?

Paul said that the church in Corinth was under the discipline of God—a discipline that took the form of many being “weak and sick”…”and some have died” (1 Cor.11:30-32). Why would Paul think that God uses such forms of discipline, and you do not?

You wrote:

I am surprised you would use this sentence in support of your thesis that God does horrible things to His children in order to train them. The book of Job, as a whole, is an emphatic statement that God does not do such things to His people. Rather Satan did all these things to Job… I cannot find in those first two chapters that God lifted His hand of protection from Job in order to test or refine him. Rather, I read that He did it to prove the veracity of His boast to Satan that “there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.” Job 1:8, 2:3

Actually, the first two chapters of Job do not specifically mention the reason you gave as the reason God brought these tests upon Job, though it is a fair inference, and you are no doubt correct that this was a primary purpose for them. Those chapters do, however, affirm that it is correct to see God as the source of Job’s trials (though Satan was the agent). Job attributed his troubles to God’s sending them, in Job 1:21 and Job 2:10. If we wish to say that Job’s comments were wrong and that he implicated God wrongfully, we will find ourselves at odds with the author, who, in both passages, affirmed that Job did not sin with his lips or charge God with wrong (1:22; 2:10). Further, God conceded that it was He who had been “incited…against [Job], to destroy him without cause” (2:3).

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.


You wrote:

This seems to suggest that though Joseph’s brothers threw him into the pit with the intent of evil, that is, to kill him, God had him thrown into the pit using that the ensuing events which resulted, in order to save many people live… This sentence gives no hint of the idea that God had a hand in the things that happened to Joseph.

How about this sentence (spoken by Joseph to his brothers): “Do not, therefore, be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life” (Gen.45:5)?


You wrote:

Well… this certainly sounds as if Satan gave Paul the thorn, not God!

Wrong. It is not “either…or…” As in Job’s case, it was both Satan and God. God is the source and Satan the agent. Paul affirms this. He asked God to remove the thorn that was “given” to him, and God said it was His purpose and desire that His strength be manifested in Paul’s weakness.

Is this not a statement of God’s purposefulness in Paul’s having a thorn? Paul says that the thorn was "given" to him so that he might not be “exalted above measure” (2 Cor.12:7). Was it Satan or God who wished to prevent Paul from being "exalted above measure"? That is the one who "gave" him the thorn—and for that purpose.

You wrote:

If that is the case, why are we accountable for our evil works? Would these evil actions not be God working through us?

God can certainly work through our evil acts and still hold us accountable for them. It is we who decide to do evil, and for that we are responsible and culpable. That God is able to exploit our actions, and even to have planned to exploit them, is not ruled out. God certainly used the sins of Pilate, Judas, Caiaphas, the chief priests and the Sanhedrin in getting Jesus crucified (which was a fulfillment of God’s purpose). God knew that these people would do these things, because Jesus predicted their actions on several occasions during His ministry. Jesus was delivered over to them by God’s “determined purpose and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23).

You wrote:

…this is not the only time Jesus used the royal “we” when He referred to Himself. He also gave the reason He was being baptized by John as “it is necessary that we fulfill all righteousness” Matthew 3:15.

This is a minor point, but I happen to disagree. I think “we”, in Matthew 3:15, is a reference to Jesus and John.


You wrote:

God can use these afflictions to that end. But that in no way implies that God gave those afflictions for that purpose…Rather I am denying that God causes that distress or allows that distress for the purpose of bringing forth that good.

It seems strange that God can use any kind of suffering for our good, but that you will not allow Him to have done it on purpose. If the end result is the benefit of His children, why should we say that God did not have this good purpose in mind and that He did not bring it about for that good reason? I know that you want to avoid charging God with doing unconscionable things, but if you admit that the end result is positive, would this not make the infliction of these things entirely conscionable?

You wrote:

“Having him crucified”? Surely you are not suggesting that God did that to His Son “for His good”? …The sufferings of the Son of God was not discipline, but for our deliverance from sin.

You limit the purpose of Christ’s suffering unnecessarily. Is God not versatile enough to accomplish several things through one event? The writer of Hebrews does not limit the purpose of Christ’s sufferings to the effect that they have on us, but sees them as having a positive effect on Jesus as well:

“For it was fitting for Him, for whom [are] all things and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Heb.2:10)

“…though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Heb.5:8-9)


You wrote:

I am not sure that “God intends them for our benefit”. However, He may not protect us in order that we may “partake of Christ’s sufferings” in order to be a witness to others, and/or to benefit others.

So He may have any purpose for allowing us to suffer except any purpose that would benefit us? Again, you make God far less versatile than does scripture. The God of the Bible knows how to multi-task. He can get benefit to Himself, to others, and to the sufferer—all out of one event (e.g. Job, Jesus).

You wrote:

However, I think that in most cases, His not protecting us is His respect for the free will of man….But I don’t think He ever gives permission to these enemies to harm His children in order to discipline them. Yet, often, or perhaps even usually, He does nothing to prevent them from doing so. I think He withholds His hand either out of respect for free will…

So, when your children were young and were being threatened by bullies or criminals, would you withhold protection from them, out of respect for the free will of the assailants? How does this arbitrarily-drawn picture of God occupy a higher moral ground than that which sees Him as protecting or withholding protection for the good of His children?

Does God care more about respecting the free will of those who would harm His children than He cares for His children’s well-being? Where do you find this upside-down set of priorities attributed to God in scripture? If you are right, then there is certainly a much greater contrast between human fathers and “the Father of spirits” than you have been willing heretofore to acknowledge.

You wrote:

In conclusion, I affirm that the people of the world generally carry out their activities, good, bad, or neutral, without any intervention from God.

Sort of a Deist vision, then? I have reason to believe otherwise. The promised protection of the angels, the provision of our daily bread (at least mine), the use of trials to refine (as in 1 Peter 1:7), the general guidance and empowering of the Holy Spirit in the Christian’s life, all speak of intimate, daily intervention of God in our lives at many levels—including those where free-will-hostiles may cross our paths. If not one sparrow falls to the ground without the will of your Father, then I am inclined to believe (since it is the very point that Jesus intended to make) that nothing harmful can befall me apart from the will of my Father. If this is so, then, when harm does come, it must have been the will of my Father. Can any daylight be seen between the links in this reasoning?

[_Paidion]

Here is a "proof text" of my position, found in (of all places) Lamentations:

For the Lord will not reject forever, for if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion according to His abundant lovingkindness. For He does not afflict willingly or grieve the sons of men. Lamentations 3:1-3 NASB

"If He causes grief". Some of the actions of the Lord are bound to cause grief among some of the many millions of the world. The next sentence seems to indicate that such grief is not intentional on the part of the Lord. For He does not willingly afflict or grieve human beings.

Or can it be said that although He is unwilling to cause grief, He does it anyway in order to achieve marvellous results in the next life? ---- a bit like an earthly father who says, "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."