Did God Really Do This?

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by Ian » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:39 am

"It concerns me that many Christians, maybe even most Christians, seem to grant the premise of Dawkins` objection. Namely, that God is the one doing all this." Greg Boyd

I don`t know about universalism, Homer, but as regards what`s going on now, Paidion has a formidable ally in Greg Boyd:

http://media.whchurch.org/2007/2007-07- ... eation.mp3

I love the compassion and big heart of this man. The way he deeply feels the pain of others. Presumably you disagree with him too? Is he also dangerous, like Paidion?

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by TK » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 am

We were reading this passage from Ezekiel yesterday and my wife is actually the one who was troubled by it and asked the question, which is a tough one. Of course it troubles me too,

I honestly don't know what to think. This passage obviously does not bother some people at all. They just feel that God can do what He wants and that's that and we just have to deal with it. And ultimately that is probably the way we have to be,

I DO trust the Lord, it is just that there is something unsettling about that passage. I suppose the reason is that it says God was going to "take" his wife. If she had just died, and THEN God gave Ezekiel the instructions about not mourning, etc it would be far far easier to grasp. But the way the passage reads it SEEMS like God killed Ezekiel's wife so that there would be a dead loved one that God could instruct Ezekiel not to mourn over ---for the purpose of an illustration to the people.

There are various passages in scripture (almost always in the OT) that when I am done reading I say to myself "I wish I hadn't just read that." Ezekiel Ch 23 is definitely another one of those passages.

TK

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by steve7150 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:03 am

This is a very close approximation to what I feel about universalists. :shock: My wife hopes universalism is true yet says "who can read their bible and believe it". Well, it isn't hard. It is a very difficult thing for someone to believe that which they do not wish to believe.

User avatar
Homer







Depends which bible she reads doesn't it Homer? If you read the KJV or other traditional bibles your wife is right but if you read Rotherham's or Youngs or a few others with different translations of a few key words you get a very different picture.
Why not buy her the Rotherham translation and let her compare the key verses for herself and see what she thinks or would that be to dangerous?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by steve » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:15 am

TK, Paidion, Ian, et al,

I don't understand the objection. I thought being a Christian disciple meant that we surrender everything to God—wife, children, our own lives also. If we begin complaining about His administration of what is His, this strikes me as a renunciation of that surrender. Maybe someone can show me where I'm thinking wrongly here.

When I became a Christian, it involved the acknowledgement that God has all the rights and He only does right things. If someone has not reached that conclusion, what is there about their commitments that can be regarded as "Christian"?

God can take anything He wants from me, and the Bible affirms that He does so. To take a living person from this life is only to take at that time what would have been taken at another time (a no less painful loss at any other time). To pretend that the scriptures can be trusted in all cases, except when they tell us something about God or His activities that we don't like, is to adopt the exegetical habits of the Word of Faith folks, who think that God is not "good" if He does not always choose the circumstances of health and wealth for people. This is making-up our theology as we go along, according to our tastes. Anyone who likes that methodology is welcome to it. I would prefer my life to be built upon firmer ground than that.

Those of us who are married, or have children (or siblings, or parents, or grandparents, or friends, or anyone else sharing our world with us) should know that each person we care about (and we ourselves) is going to die. Sorry, it's just the facts. Fortunately, this life is not all there is, and it is certainly not what we, or anyone else, should be living for. Jesus said, in every Gospel, one way or another, that we cannot love our lives in this world and still be HIs disciples. We allegedly accepted His terms when we signed up.

I do not like the way some people die, and I don't like the timing of some people's deaths—but, hey, maybe it's just people dying that is the common denominator that I don't like. However, my liking something or not is not what God is required to consult when He decides what the right thing is for Him to do. If we don't like the time and manner in which someone we loved died, we mght justly ask, "When and how did we actually want them to die? And can we be sure the way we would have preferred would have accomplished more for the kingdom of God than what actually transpired?" Where does any ground for objection come in?

Paidion doesn't believe what I am about to say (we have discussed it here more than once), but my convictions are as follows:

1) As with Belshazzar, our breath is in God's hands (Dan.5:23). If this does not mean that God has power over life and death, I do not know what it could possibly mean. Every breath we take is a gift granted because God chooses to extend our life that much longer (there will be an end of breaths);

2) With reference to believers, God's supernatural, unconquerable protection is guaranteed for the duration of our proper lifetimes (Psalm 34:7; 91:11-12). We are able to survive in a deadly dangerous world because of this protection. There is no power greater than God to protect those whom He may wish to protect. When we succumb to something that kills us, it can only be because God chose not to protect us from that circumstance, in which case, He was either evil or He had good reasons. His being too weak to save and protect is not one of the options.

I have never been able to understand how anyone can face crises without understanding these truths. What possible "peace" (a constant endowment—"like a river"—for the believer) can be had if there are powers greater than the God we serve, who, despite His desire to keep people alive, can overwhelm Him and snatch His things out of His hand? I'll stick with the God who revealed Himself in scripture and in Christ, and leave the lesser gods to other faiths.

3) Paul said that, for a believer, "To die is gain." Given the other components in the constellation of a Christian's worldview, this conclusion would have been self-evident, even if Paul had not mentioned it. Why would any Christian complain if God chose to promote a loved one (or him/herself) to a more desirable condition than that which they occupied here on earth? What, that is, other than a renunciation of our former surrender to His will?

I guess my challenge to you would be: "If God actually turns out to be the God revealed in the pages of scripture, would you be able to love Him? Or must you hold out for a lesser god, whose thoughts are more like you own? Perhaps, God should be transformed by the renewing of His mind into our image?

I don't know what Greg Boyd wrote in the link above (I am still teaching several hours a day in Seattle, and cannot read it right now). I like Greg Boyd, but if he denies the above three propositions, or reaches from them different conclusions, then I will have to politely disagree with him. I cannot think otherwise without denying either scripture or logic. I prefer to maintain a firm grip on both.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by steve7150 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:20 am

So God seldom intervenes with the working of nature, including fallen nature. He will restore it all in His time. He will reconcile all to Himself in His time. He is totally good, totally LOVING, and totally GOD! We need to make the best of this fallen world, submit to Christ's words as to how to live the most fulfilling, productive life, and rejoice in our relationship to the Father and to the Son. One of the most important matters in life is to refrain from attributing to God attitudes and actions which are contrary to His character. This is perhaps the worst of all blasphemies.





Paidion,
The answer seems to me directly correlated to the definition of "love." What exactly is "love"? So if God allows man this complete free will with all it's consequences of evil and injustice i have to ask, why? Why is free will such a sacred cow , that it must never be questioned even in a way placing it above God's will because by saying God rarely intervenes then presumably he is almost obligated to not interfere with the "free will" of man i must ask again, why?

Why allow Satan to influence man including Adam and Eve?
Why were good and evil in the same tree, why not separate trees?
Why was this tree of good and evil right in the middle of the garden?
Why did it look so attractive to the eye?

I agree with you that most likely God does not directly intervene and make people sick or cause their death but this evil age is not just happenstance that man just caused by his stumbling into sin, it was God's plan from the beginning because we as a human race only learn and improve by overcoming evil through God's help. Another words that's how we grow up from children into adults , difficult as it is.
So again how would you define "love" from God's perspective?

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by Ian » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:48 am

Steve,

Really I was responding more to Paidion`s heart-rending story about the death of his first wife. The story in Ezekiel troubles me far less, if at all, assuming that God "took" his wife in a merciful manner. Your own interpretation of your second wife`s death does not trouble me either. A drunk driver hits her so hard that she was barely recognizable afterwards, is what I gleaned from your account. She would hopefully have suffered little pain. But I understood Paidion`s bewilderment over the manner of the death of his wife. And frankly, to imply "rebellion" on his part is unfair. A zebra trapped in mud gets taken apart, piece by piece, by a pack of hyenas, whilst still conscious, and likely with just as sensitive a nervous system as you and I. This is the type of scenario that troubles Greg Boyd who, last time I checked, was also not in rebellion.

But,

I still love you, man.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by steve » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:00 pm

Hi Ian,

I am also affected by Paidion's account. There are many like it, of course. The question under discussion here is not whether such loss is heart-rending, but whether it fits into a biblical worldview in which God is still seen as "good" even when He does not heal or protect us from harm.

Paidion's view (if he has not changed it since last time we discussed these matters) is that God is so beholden to the concept of man's free will that God's hands are tied even with reference to protecting His own obedient people from the malicious free will of evil men. Thus, all sorrows that befall us due to the evil choices of others fall outside the range of the things that scripture promises He can protect us from (meaning, of course, that there is pitifully little that God can protect us from in this world).

If this is so, all the cases in scripture where God actually did deliver Israel from the malice of enemies, or David, Paul—even Jesus—from those people who were seeking ("choosing") to kill them must be excised from the biblical record, because they describe a God very capable of delivering His people from every kind of harm—fire, lions, or the schemes of malicious free-will agents. My argument is against the view that disaster just happens. God is unable to decide whether you will be murdered or delivered. Man decides all such matters.

When it comes to death by natural causes, it is impossible to say that God had to let them happen since there was no human free will involved for Him to honor. Neither Paidion's wife nor Ezekiel's died as a result of any person's free choices. Thus, unless we are now required to deny God even the power to heal sicknesses, there can be nothing, other than His own plans and purposes to the contrary, that would prevent Him from intervening to save their lives. Paidion thinks God cannot be expected to intervene frequently in such matters. This may be correct—but the question is why not?

There is no law above God forbidding Him to heal any sick persons He may wish to heal—and it does not cost Him anything to do so. Especially is this the case when there are people praying for the recovery of the sick—which would seem to remove any philosophical obstacle to His healing anyone that He wishes to heal. In other words, if God cannot intervene to prevent an untimely death, it is not due to any moral limitations placed upon Him, but it is merely His choice. That means, if He doesn't intervene, it is because He does not want to do so—since nothing prevents HIm from intervening as often as He may wish to.

God has often intervened to save lives and to heal sicknesses miraculously (unless we are to expunge those cases from both scripture and Christian history, in order to maintain our "powerless God" theology). He could have intervened similarly to prevent the death of my wife, Paidion's wife or Ezekiel's wife. He did not do so. What can this mean but that, in the cases wherein He did intervene, He desired the person not to die at that time, while in the cases in which He did not intervene, His will was the opposite.

In addition to free will, among the gifts God gave to man is rationality. This quality requires that we take one of two approaches to tragedy—either the position I am espousing, or else the allegation that vast portions of the Bible are unreliable. Paidion unashamedly takes the latter view. I think it's a sell-out, but he is welcome to express it here. What he cannot hope for is that his expression of this view here will go unchallenged by people who still have more confidence in the Bible than in Paidion's intuitions.

Zebras, by the way, do not present the same conundrum as that of Christian's death. Since God has made no specific promises to zebras (we might wish that He had!), His leaving them to their fate provides no evidence against His faithfulness to keep His word.

User avatar
john6809
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Summerland, B.C.

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by john6809 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:40 pm

I don't understand why God's character could be called into question if He did allow (or cause) a person's death, no matter by what means they die. My understanding is that we all deserve hell, based on our actions. What hell is, I will leave to others to debate. Suffice it to say that it can't be a pleasant situation, no matter the duration or the quality of life in this place called hell.

But, that is what we all deserve - technically. It is by God's grace and mercy alone that He chose to send His son to die so that we might live. Those who don't like the idea that a loving God could allow people to die a miserable death might reflect on this question - is God really loving if He Himself devised a salvation plan that required His own Son to suffer such an agonizing death? Beyond that, if we all can acquiesce to the idea that we, based on our own sin, deserve to suffer hell, but by His undeserved favour we don't, how can we complain or question the love of God when He allows us to suffer such small (relative to hell) things in this lifetime? The opportunity to join Jesus on the other side is a pleasant future prospect for me, as it should be to all who are saved. There is only one way to get there - death. It may or may not be painful (for the person dying). But it will be short-lived (relative to eternity).

I sometimes wonder if the real reason people don't like the idea of loved ones suffering in death isn't selfishness. Often the person dying is suffering. But isn't the one left behind also suffering, powerless to share the burden of pain, and then, left alone in this world? That is pain and nobody longs for that pain. If we were able to submit ourselves entirely to God, maybe we could withstand even this without questioning God's love.
"My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: That I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Savior." - John Newton

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by Homer » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:52 pm

Hi steve,

You wrote:
You say that it is hard for someone to believe what they do not wish to believe. In context, this appears to be an accusation against universalists
No, it is my belief that this tendency applies to all people.
suggesting that they actually can see the biblical case for eternal torment, but, because they do not wish to believe it, they simply reject it
No, I do not believe that they can see it.
You say that universalists choose their beliefs based on their sentiments? What does this suggestion mean?
No, I think their sentiments influence their exegesis of scripture. Do you believe their feelings about God play no part in their exegesis of scripture? When views held by many Christians are said to be of a monstrous God? Are those expressions not a reflection, at least in part, of feelings?
Do you mean that they do what I pointed out Paidion doing—viz., deciding which scriptures are inspired and authoritative (and which are not) upon the basis of how he feels about them?
No.
Did you catch any of them ignoring or challenging the inspiration of any passage you have brought up against them?
Not that I can recall, but it might have occured in regard to some incidents in the Old Testament.
It seems to me that the universalists do not argue on the basis of their sentiments, but they often argue on the basis of God's sentiments, as they are revealed in Christ. In your judgment, is this a bad approach to theology?
Yes, insofar as God's sentiments and character are depicted as one dimensional, which seems to be the case.

In another post you wrote:
To pretend that the scriptures can be trusted in all cases, except when they tell us something about God or His activities that we don't like, is to adopt the exegetical habits of the Word of Faith folks, who think that God is not "good" if He does not always choose the circumstances of health and wealth for people. This is making-up our theology as we go along, according to our tastes. Anyone who likes that methodology is welcome to it. I would prefer my life to be built upon firmer ground than that.
Are you doing with the Word of Faith folks what you accuse me of doing with the Universalists? Sure seems like it.

Nothing seems to get you excited as much as an argument for Calvinism or against Universalism.

Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with your sentiments regarding God's sovereignty regarding our lives upon this earth. :D

Have a blessed day and lighten up a bit, bro.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Did God Really Do This?

Post by Jason » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:55 pm

For me, the problem has never been the fairness of God taking someone's life (much for the reasons Steve has already expressed) but the idea of protracted physical pain, whether or not it actually leads to death. A few months ago, I encountered a health problem that left me in pretty severe pain that I couldn't even begin to manage without the aid of prescription pain killers. Though my trial with physical pain was short (due to the drugs), I did question the merit of allowing that level of pain to exist in the first place. I can endure certain amounts of nagging pain, but what I experienced just seemed.... wrong. And not because I don't deserve to suffer, but because I couldn't think a rational thought in the midst of it. It's hard to pray or reflect on comforting passages of scripture when your brain is not functioning due to the intensity of the ailment. No answers here... just throwing that out there.

Post Reply

Return to “Major and Minor Prophets”