Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

I will answer you point-by-point when my time permits. However, I would wish to make the following overall observations:

I was rather hoping that your attempt to show my position to be biblically wrong would be more cogent—but this may be asking too much. It seems clear that my position cannot be shown to be unscriptural, because it is based 100% on direct statements of scripture, and not on speculative philosophy.

There are two ways that you could have attempted to show my view to be biblically incorrect: 1) You could have dealt with the scriptures upon which my view rests, showing that I am not understanding their meaning as it was intended by the writers; or 2) you could try to discover scriptural statements that positively present your own viewpoint, in contrast to mine.


----------------------later, same day--------------------------

Okay, here is my answer—

You wrote:

First I want to emphasize that I fully concur with the writer of Hebrews, that God disciplines His children.

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Hebrews 12:4-11 ESV

The writer compares the Heavenly Father’s discipline of His children with that of an earthly father’s discipline of his. Using this very analogy, I tried to show that our loving Heavenly Father doesn’t discipline His children, by killing their babies, or allowing their young daughters to be raped, just as a loving human father doesn’t discipline his children by breaking their bones or stabbing them with a knife.

The assertion has certainly been made often enough by you. What we await from you is a scriptural case justifying your placing the limitations of God’s inflicting suffering as a corrective measure at the point where you have placed the boundary (in fact, I await your clear identification of such a boundary). I have previously challenged you on this very point, but received no answer. In any case, you have done nothing toward undermining my argument except to observe that emergency health procedures do not qualify as “parental discipline.”

This effort to disarm my point is quite easily seen to be invalid:

First, because the Greek word for “discipline” in Hebrews 12 (paideuo, from the same root as your screen name) is not limited to spanking a disobedient child, but to the whole enterprise of rearing and training a child to maturity. By limiting it to the corrective discipline of a naughty child, you fail to take into consideration all other forms of training that are involved in rearing a child of good character—some of which may involve placing uncomfortable burdens upon an obedient child under training, as well as subjecting the child to stringent testing. The needs of the training are determined by the goals at which the training aims. The aim in our training is that "Christ be formed" in us (Gal.4:19)—a steep assignment, requiring unusual demands in preparation;

Second, because the process of sanctifying a thoroughgoing sinner and restoring him to the condition of God-likeness is quite analogous to certain medical procedures, like the removal of cancerous cells or the straightening of a crooked limb. I never likened these activities to “punishing” a disobedient child. If you suppose that the only suffering to which God delivers us for our gain and His glory is that which comes upon us when we are naughty, then what do we do with the many scriptures that speak of God allowing Christians to be persecuted for their righteousness (not for their misbehavior)?

In the context of Hebrews 12, the painful ordeal (to which the writer refers as “discipline”) is referring to the persecution of the readers by hostile antichristian neighbors. This is clear from the immediate context, in Hebrews 12:3-7 (see, additionally, 10:32-34 and 13:13). Thus, the “chastening” that God allows includes the persecution of God’s children by sinful men (who have sometimes done some rather “abusive” things to the godly—including torture, scourging with whips, slaying with the sword, burning with fire, and sawing in two, see 11:35-37)—the very things that you say God would never use as means of chastisement. The very book of Hebrews, to which you have appealed, directly contradicts you!

I guess the question I would have for you is, would you still love God, and trust Him as a loving Father, if he disciplined you in the very ways that the writer of Hebrews describes? If not, then the pastoral purpose of Hebrews 12 is lost on you. If you would, then why should not everyone be expected to do so? You are not better than everyone else. Shouldn't every person respond in the manner that you and I are required to respond?

The very passage you quoted says that God does these things so that “we might be partakers of His holiness” (sounds like a “higher purpose” to me). You yourself admitted that this chastening is done because “it trains us to bear the peaceful fruits of righteousness.” Thus you acknowledge a higher purpose in God’s allowing people to suffer. Why do you, elsewhere, continue to deny this?

You wrote

So if a loving earthly father would not use such extreme measures to discipline his children, don’t tell me that the Heavenly Father, who is pure LOVE, would do so! As my first wife used to say, "God is at least as good as I am!"

Your argument is not with me, but with the writer to the Hebrews (and the rest of the biblical witness). However, since your view seems so lacking in any biblical conception of eternity, I will try to help you past this problem. There is, in fact, another life after this one. Jesus said that, in order to partake in that life, one would be well-served, if necessary, to gouge out one’s own eye, or to saw off one’s own hand or foot. If Jesus really believed such things (I know you think Jesus sometimes said things He did not mean, like His answer to the disciples, in John 9:3), then we must conclude that ANY amount of pain, loss, disability or even physical death is more than worthwhile to endure, if such is necessary in order for us to acquire that eternal beatific vision. Given this scale of values, why would we think God unwilling to permit us, even involuntarily, to make such sacrifices? Why would it be below His dignity to allow someone else to do to me what would benefit me to do for myself, which Jesus said would be “more profitable" for me (Matthew 5:30)?

I agree with your wife. God is at least as good as we are. That is why I cannot accept your position. My love for my children is such that, if they find me not intervening to spare them some kind of suffering (when it would be in my power to do so), they can count on the fact that I see my non-intervention as an unavoidable necessity for some higher good for them. This is the only way my love for them could be reconciled with my non-intervention.

In the disciplining of our children, we do not commit criminal acts (e.g., killing our children), which God has forbidden us to do. But a thing that would be criminal for me to do, might not be criminal for God to do. For example, no Christian in the first century considered the assassination of Herod Agrippa to be within his or her province, but God had no qualms about striking him dead and causing worms to eat him. God has prerogatives (and purposes) that transcend ours.

It is the plain teaching of scripture that we all must die, because of our sins. However, it is not ours to decide when we or another will die. That is obviously God’s prerogative. Nor would it be right for you or me to assault and cripple Jacob, though God did so without compunction. God has the right to deprive any man of life, property, health, loved ones, etc., but we do not.

We discipline our children in their childhood in order that they might have a better adult life. God disciplines us for this whole lifetime, so that we might have a better eternity. Of course, we do not have the power or the right to do to our children all that God has the right to do to humanity. But Hebrews 12 assures us of one thing: whatever God may allow to be done to us, He allows because He loves us. This is the sum and core of my position, but seems entirely absent from yours.

You wrote:

If anyone should do any of those atrocious things to me to “teach me a lesson”, the thought would never cross my mind that the Father did not prevent him from doing so in order to discipline me, or to serve some other “higher purpose.”

Which is probably the primary difference between you and Jesus, who saw His sufferings as a "cup" that His Father had given Him. The rest of the great cloud of witnesses in scripture agreed with Jesus, not with your position, as the many scriptures I have previously posted, and which you have heretofore ignored, attest. Under your view, you would have only two options. If God allowed you to suffer greatly at the hands of sinners—you must conclude either that 1) God was not capable of protecting you from harm, which would, of course, mean that all of His solemn promises are nothing but a crock of empty, "feel good" nonsense; or 2) God, by not intervening, demonstrated that He does not love you—the only remaining recourse open to you, since you cannot imagine that He allows such things because of His love for you.


You wrote:

There is no doubt that suffering for the sake of Christ serves a higher purpose. This I have never denied.

Actually, I think you have denied it, but in different terms. The difference between you and me on this matter is that you see only direct persecution from unbelievers to be “suffering for Christ.” Your idea of Christianity is way too narrow. Mother Theresa did not suffer much, in terms of persecution, but she nonetheless "suffered for Christ" for many decades. Any trials that are intended to improve us or glorify God, whether suffered voluntarily or involuntarily, would qualify as "suffering for Christ” (that is, for Christ’s glory, for His purposes, for His likeness to be wrought in us). James (1:2ff) said that we can rejoice in all kinds of trials because they are working perfection in us. “Trials” are not limited to persecutions. Paul referred to his physical ailment by the same word (Gal.4:14). Paul’s infirmity was so severe that he repeatedly begged God to remove it—until God revealed to him that it was serving a "higher purpose" in God’s plans for Paul (2 Cor.12:7-10). After that, Paul saw the matter just as I have been suggesting.

You wrote:

For Christ Himself, as Steve pointed out, suffered for our sake. And this for the higher purpose of securing our deliverance from sin. Yes, I agree with Steve that “It was the will of His Father that He suffer”. This was the Father’s will because it was the means of our redemption.

You appear to be introducing an artificial dichotomy between Christ’s sufferings and ours. When we suffer, Christ is still suffering (in us) for the sins of mankind. We are His body, not His fan club. What is done to Christ’s brethren is done to Him. Paul learned, on the road to Damascus, that his persecution of Christians was the persecution of Jesus Himself (Acts 9:5). If it pleased the Lord to bruise Christ for man’s salvation, might it not please the same Lord to bruise me for the sake of others or myself being delivered from sin? Thus, our sufferings “fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ,” and are themselves “the koinonia (sharing or co-participation) of His sufferings” (Col.1:24/Phil.3:10). As a Romanian Christian, who suffered under Communism, put it: “Christ’s sufferings were for propitiation; our sufferings are for propagation.”

You yourself quoted from 1 Peter 2—

“But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.”

Peter’s point is that our suffering for righteousness is our “calling” because it is what is involved in following Christ, who suffered for righteousness. But how does this follow? Would it not be more reasonable to say that Christ suffered for us, so that we will not have to suffer ourselves? Of course, this would be more reasonable, unless there was an underlying assumption that our sufferings were as necessary as were Christ’s—and for much the same reason. His suffering continues in the suffering of His Body, the church, and so there is every reason for the Christian to see God’s “higher purposes” in all of his own sufferings (as I have affirmed and you have denied throughout this dialogue), just as in Christ's.

By the way, the suffering for "doing good," to which Peter refers, in the passage, is addressed to servants abused by their masters. It is not talking about their suffering persecution specifically for being Christians, but it refers to their undeserved suffering from cruel masters, though they have been obedient slaves. Of course, this good behavior is an outgrowth of their Christian convictions (as is all of our behavior), so we can see any unjust suffering that comes upon us undeservedly (that is, we did not provoke it, because Christ has made us decent people) as being in the same class as that which is described in this verse.

You wrote:

We should be cautious, however, in quoting “It pleased the Lord to bruise Him” as if it meant that God took pleasure in Christ’s sufferings per se. A person who gives one of his lungs to save another’s life, when thanked, might say, “I was pleased to donate my lung”. He does not mean that he enjoyed having one of his lungs removed, or that he now enjoys missing a lung. Rather he means that he is pleased to donate his lung in order to save the other person’s life. Likewise, God didn’t take a sadistic pleasure in seeing His Son suffer. Rather He was pleased to sacrifice Him, even though it meant great suffering on Jesus’ part, in order to provide a way of deliverance from sin for all of mankind.

Yes, we should be cautious about that. We should also be cautious about resorting to straw man arguments. It only advertises the weakness of our position, if we have to distort our opponent’s position before we can find fault with it. No one known to me believes that God takes sadistic delight in the pains of His children. I do believe that I winced more at the re-breaking of my son’s arm than he did! There was no delight in it for either of us—but it was necessary (as are our sufferings—1 Peter 1:6).

To the disadvantage of your own position, again, you quoted 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, where Paul speaks of his own (and other Christians’) sufferings as producing “an eternal weight of glory”—certainly something worth referring to as a “higher purpose.” You have attempted, all along, to say that whatever sufferings God may use in disciplining us (admittedly, for a better purpose) are slight sufferings—like the way we discipline our children—and that He does not use methods that you refer to as "child abuse." You certainly picked the wrong example, if it was your intention to maintain your position!

It is true that, in this passage, Paul speaks of his sufferings as “light afflictions, which are but for a moment” (like parental discipline). But to what is Paul referring when he speaks of such “light afflictions”? You may consult his own answer, given in the same epistle. Let us catalogue some of them. Paul tells us:

1) “we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life…” (1:8)

2) “we are hard pressed on every side…we are perplexed…persecuted…struck down…always carrying about in our body the dying of the Lord Jesus [so] that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body (a very good purpose!)” (4:8-10)

3) “…in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often…five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep…in perils of robbers…in sleeplessness often; in hunger and thirst…in cold and nakedness…” (11:23-27)

Paidion, are these the ways that you discipline your children: thirty-nine lashes? Beating with rods? Forced starvation and sleeplessness? "Water-boarding" (shipwreck and overnight in tempestuous, dark water, clinging to wreckage)? Stoning? Exposure to the cold? It is true that many of these experiences of Paul involved the very wicked deeds of sinners (though not all of them did—some just involved bad weather and flimsy ships), but Paul sees God's purpose in allowing all of these things in his life. They contribute to Paul's having the life of Jesus manifested in him (that is, the glory of God revealed in him—Rom.8:18).

You do not discipline your children this way, but God does! These are the very “light afflictions” that Paul says God uses to work for us “an eternal weight of glory”! It is clear that in God’s eyes (and in Paul’s) such things do not constitute “child abuse” when God is “bringing many sons to glory” (Heb.2:10). Are you going to get on-board with the Bible yet, or are you going to stick to your guns?

You wrote:

However, Christ’s sufferings and our suffering for His sake, are of a completely different order from the general suffering of mankind at the hands of murderers, rapists, and torturers.

This is only true if we think that God loves only those who are already Christians, and not those who still need to become Christians. My theology affirms God’s love for all people—not just the current batch of believers at any given time. If God thinks that suffering (even at the hands of persecutors, murderers, rapist, torturers) can potentially be beneficial for the glorification of those who have already received Him, what, other than your arbitrary declaration, would lead us to think that God would not use similar loving discipline in order to turn unbelievers to Himself? It is true that the Bible addresses itself only to the suffering of believers, because it is written as a pastoral comfort to believers who are suffering. But nothing in these passages tell us that God would never employ the same techniques on others, in order that they too might become believers.

I will allow that the Bible makes no such promises of protection to unbelievers as it makes to believers. However, the problem we are exploring here is whether, when one person is victimized by another, it was in God’s power to intervene and rescue the victim, or not. That God can intervene to protect believers is everywhere promised and demonstrated in scripture. That He does not always do so, for His own purposes, has also been established—by the very scriptures you have brought to the table.

Now, let us consider…If forty Jews have banded together to not eat or drink before they have killed Paul, is God able to deliver Paul from their plot? Yes, of course—and He did so, though not without thwarting their “free will.” On the other hand, on the five occasions when Paul received 39 lashes from the Jews, was God incapable of saving Paul those times? To suggest this would be absurd! So then, God sometimes does and sometimes does not intervene to rescue Paul from sinful, bloodthirsty, abusive men. Clearly, this is because, in one case, it best serves His purposes to intervene, and in other cases, it does not. However, we all agree that, where the plots of sinful men against Christians are concerned, God is well able to rescue, but sometimes chooses not to do so.

Let us then take the case of the victimization of a non-Christian. Again we are faced with sinful, bloodthirsty, abusive men—the very same kind as those that God is able to deliver a Christian from. Now, what is it about this second case that ties God’s hands from intervening, but which does not accrue in the case of a Christian victim. Human autonomy is no more or less honored in one case than in the other. Shall we assume that the reason God does not intervene to save a Christian from persecution is because God loves the Christians, and sees suffering as potentially helpful to them, but that the reason the same God does not intervene in the case of a non-Christian victim is that God does not love them? Maybe. But I am of the impression from the example of Christ (your authority also) that God loves sinners, as well as saints.

Though your stated goal is to disprove the GNIBHP view, you actually affirm this view when it comes to the persecution of Christians. Your failure is to make the leap from there to the place of God’s love for all people.

You wrote:

Keep in mind that GNIBHP refers specifically to people's heinous acts against others.

No, it doesn’t. That is an artificial limitation that you are creating out of thin air. When Paul talked about his “light afflictions” which God allows for a ‘higher purpose,” he includes various forms of persecution, but also various dangers in the sea, in the wilderness, etc. He includes his poverty and hunger. He seems to include his “thorn in the flesh,” which he calls, “my infirmities” (2 Cor.12:9). He also includes “my deep concern for all the churches,” saying, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who stumbles, and I do not burn?” (2 Cor.11:28-29). Paul’s “light afflictions” were a package deal. Just like James’ “various trials” (James 1:2). Every kind of suffering, whether caused by sinful men, by weather, by sickness—you name it—was included under that heading.

Because God is capable of protecting us from any kind of harm or suffering, the instances of suffering from which we are not protected must be received as coming from Him. You said that Job reacted differently after he was afflicted by boils than he did after his first wave of trials. You are mistaken. After the first wave, he said, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away…”(1:20). After the second, he said, “Shall we indeed receive good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” (2:10). In both places, we are then informed, “In all this, Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong”(1:22), and “In all this, Job did not sin with his lips” (2:10). The author wants to make sure that we recognize that, in expressing this theological position (the one you are denying), Job "spoke rightly about God" (42:8).

Since you are saying the complete opposite of what Job said, are you not concerned that you are not speaking rightly about God?


You wrote:

Not only this, but anyone can use GNIBHP thinking as an excuse for sin. After all, God didn’t prevent me from sinning, and so it must have been His permissive will for me to do so. He must have had a higher purpose fulfilled by allowing me to sin.

Certainly you are aware that what some call the “permissive will” of God is not descriptive of God’s will for human behavior, but for outcomes. There is only one will for human behavior—“your sanctification” (1 Thess.4:3). The term “permissive will” is employed by some to label the larger category of what God permits (in that He does not choose to prevent it), in order to bring about a certain result—even if He disapproves of the actors’ motives or actions. The case of Joseph at the mercy of his brothers is a classic example. There is simply no way to deny that there are crimes that God does not choose to thwart, though He could as easily have thwarted them. To say that God "permitted" them because it was His "will" to do so, is simply to attribute to God normal rationality and volition. What He chooses to do or not do is chosen according to a purpose. The only other alternatives would be that God makes decisions about such matters without any purpose or rationality guiding Him—or else that God is not capable of intervention at all (an option which your own statements have already ruled out).

You wrote:

Interestingly, the writer of 2 Peter stated in response to the scoffers’ “Where is the promise of His coming?” that God is patient toward us, “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance”. 2 Peter 3:9. This writer poses a very interesting conundrum for those who differentiate between God’s “primary will” and His “permissive will.” Was the writer’s statement that God is not willing that any should perish” His primary will? It would seem so, but yet He stays His hand of judgment with the higher purpose that all WILL come to repentance. Since God could have judged mankind, but has chosen not to intervene because of the higher purpose to bring all to repentance, it appears that the staying of His hand would be His permissive will. Could His permissive will be that man would go on sinning so that His primary will could be accomplished? To me this sounds a lot like the end justifying the means.

And so it is! God’s ends may be accomplished by whatever means are not in conflict with His character. Apparently, non-interference with the sins of men so that they may live long enough to repent is not contrary to God’s character. You have provided another excellent example of God’s permissive will.

You wrote:

But an even more serious conundrum. Back to Jesus’ prayer. If God’s permissive will is to bring about a deeper purpose, then surely that deeper purpose is His primary will. So if God’s will is not being done on earth as it is in heaven, and God does nothing to change that state of affairs, then God is “allowing” such a state so that His higher purpose or primary will might be done. But Jesus prays that God’s (primary) will be done on earth as it is in heaven. But if Jesus’ prayer should be answered, would not that fact thwart the “higher purpose” served by His will NOT being done on earth?

What you call a "serious conundrum" fails to recognize what is meant when one differentiates between God's "permissive will" and His "perfect will." The former is provisional, and involves God's deciding how much grief He is willing to endure at the hands of rebels (whom He could crush in an instant), while He awaits the realization of circumstances reflecting His "perfect will."

It is like His choice to allow Satan's continued existence at the present time, which He is not obliged to do. He is not endorsing Satan, nor sinners, by letting them continue their careers for the time being. However, He does find their chicanery a thing which He can exploit for higher purposes—e.g., getting Joseph into Egypt; testing the purity of Job's devotion; getting Jesus crucified; keeping Paul from being "exalted above measure;" etc., etc. This in no way suggests that the motives or behavior of these miscreants please Him (any more, as you pointed out, than God was delighted in the necessity of "bruising" Christ—it involved lots of evil, but it was essential). Nor does belief in a permissive will suggest that, while He currently tolerates (permits) a certain state of affairs, He can see no room for improvement, or that He intends to tolerate them for ever.

That God permits things (that is, does not prevent them) which He cannot endorse is a plain observation of the state of the world and mankind. The only alternative to calling this state of affairs His "permissive will," would be to say that He is not really choosing to permit them at all—He is just powerless to prevent them. This seems to be your thesis, though you have never provided any scripture that speaks of God's inability to thwart evil human plans. Nor have you provided anything like a theological or philosophical argument that can explain the differences between the times that God proves, by His intervention, that He surely CAN thwart human plans, on the one hand, and the times when (in your belief) He is incapable of doing so.

You wrote:

Somehow, that stance reminds me of Calvinism.

We do not develop correct theology by identifying bad theology and running as far as we can to the opposite extreme on every point. Calvinism is not necessarily wrong about everything (they do believe in the resurrection of Christ, for instance). I believe they are also right in their belief that the God who created all things is powerful enough (and has every right) to rule His creation. Where they and I disagree, would be in explaining how He carries out that rule.


You wrote:

When God’s will is recognized as simple, such inherent contradictions as I have described above, do not arise.

True, but different, more difficult ones do! To deny the existence of a permissive will requires either the claim that all that happens currently is God’s perfect will, or else that the things which happen against God's perfect will happen, not by God’s willingly allowing it, but by His impotence. Simplicity is not to be had here. Given the two choices, I would prefer the complexity that comes with believing scripture than that which comes from denying scripture.

You wrote:

“So all I can say is that in general, He respects the autonomy and free will of man, since they are his own attributes, and if man insists on exercising them instead of depending completely on God, then He will respect that, too. So He doesn’t often intervene.

I have underlined the significant features of your argument in this paragraph. If God only respects autonomy “in general” (and not absolutely or consistently), upon what principles does He NOT respect it on the occasions that He does not. If He is free on some occasions to not respect human autonomy, would He not be equally free on all occasions not to do so—rendering His decision, to respect or not to respect, a purposeful act, chosen by Him on a case-by-case basis?

If He does not “often” intervene, what principle guides Him on the occasions when He does do so? Would not the same principle permit Him to do so more often, if it were His will to do so? I have been asking you this question from the beginning of our dialogue. It probably isn't going to go away.

You wrote:

Man makes his own sinful choices. It might be said that God doesn’t intervene so that man will learn from the consequences of his wrongdoing. But the fact is, that in this life, some learn from these consequences, but many don’t. So if that were the chief reason for His non-intervention, it doesn’t seem to be working very well.

If God does something intended to be beneficial to people, but they react violently against Him, and fail to benefit, is this a failure of policy on God’s part? I would suggest that the policy, while not always getting the desired results, nonetheless is working far better than you give it credit for. Multitudes throughout history, who had paid no attention to God in their prosperity, have turned to Him in their afflictions. King Manasseh immediately comes to mind (2 Chron.33:10-13 / cf. Psalm 119:67). Have you not heard very many Christian testimonies?

You wrote:

However, God will not always bear with man’s inhumanity to man. He intends, ultimately, to judge and correct every individual person.

At that time, if I understand you correctly, He will abandon His cherished policy of honoring human autonomy? Why? Will He come to the conclusion that it was a bad idea after all?

But, more to our present point, if God has the right and the power to intervene and stop the victimization at some future date, what renders Him incapable of doing so, whenever He might wish to do so, throughout history?

You wrote:

I know that the absence of Jesus’ reference to GNIBHP doesn’t prove the view incorrect. Yet, if it were a general explanation for the atrocities which God “allows” people to commit against others, it seems we should expect some mention of it by Jesus or the apostles.

What “absence” of mention are you referring to? You only give a couple of irrelevant (to the issues under discussion) pericopes from Luke where Jesus did not expound upon “GNIBHP.” Must He repeat a doctrine every time an occasion to speak arises? He also made no reference in these two passages to His impending crucifixion and resurrection (a topic very relevant to this question). Shall we then conclude, from this strange “absence” of mention, that He never spoke of His crucifixion?

The scriptures I have listed in two of my previous posts seem to show there to be no “absence” of teaching on this subject from Jesus or the apostles. Nor is there an absence of it, for example, in Hebrews, James or 2 Corinthians, which we have been discussing here.

You wrote:

I know you can point out to me the case of the man who was blind from birth (not actually an atrocity foisted upon him by others) where Jesus was asked who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind. Jesus replied, “Neither… but so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” Was this man born blind for a deeper purpose, that God’s works might be revealed in him?

Yes. I brought up this example in my oldest posts, in our earlier debate elsewhere. It looks like a doctrinal teaching of Christ to me—unless, of course, your theory is correct that "maybe Jesus didn't mean what He said here."

You wrote:

Maybe Jesus really did mean that the man was born blind for this higher purpose. But if so, does it follow that ALL suffering is “allowed” by God for a higher purpose? There is no suggestion here or elsewhere that God's non-intevention in man's atrocities to others is because of a higher goal to be realized.

But what about the testimony of the rest of the scriptures. Shall they not be allowed to shed any light on the topic?

You wrote:

Steve, you may want to identify with Job’s view after his children died, but perhaps you don’t want to identify with his view after he suffered from boils. He wasn’t quite so accepting of “the will of God’ then. He said that he had no hope.

I dealt with this above, proving your contention to be contrary to the text on this point. Job’s response after being afflicted with boils was exactly the same as was his response to the earlier losses. It is true that, after about seven days of feeling sorry for himself, his optimistic faith caved in and he spoke out of turn—for which he later repented. But his initial reactions were to see these trials as God’s doing, and to praise God in them. It is these responses that are referred to as Job’s “speaking right things” about God.

You wrote:

But neither Joseph’s view, nor Job’s view (even before his boils), nor that which was expressed by Jesus, Paul, or Peter, supports the GNIBHP thesis!

You are plainly mistaken in this statement. If you think this statement is valid, can you actually do us the service of explaining the relevant texts in a way that does not affirm GNIBHP? Their affirmations do indeed declare their belief in GNIBHP—and quite on the surface, too. To get them to affirm anything else will require more ingenuity of exegesis than you have even attempted to present. In fact, you have provided no exegesis on these verses at all.

You wrote:

The passage in 2 Cor: 12:7-10 does lend support to the idea that God gave Paul a “thorn in the flesh” (perhaps eye cataracts), a messenger of Satan to keep him humble. But this is quite different from saying that God allowed someone to poke a red hot poker in his eyes, blinding him in order to bring about his humility.

The difference is one only in degree, not in kind. Paul also included being flogged, starved, and stoned, along with many other "abuses," among the things that were working for his eventual glorification, as we have previously seen. You keep insisting that there is a line, perceptible to common sense, between what God may allow to happen to His kids and something else, which you call “child abuse.” Paul does not seem to be aware of such a line. Perhaps he possessed uncommon sense.

You wrote:

To sum up, I simply wish to affirm that man’s atrocious, heinous, acts against other people have their origin in the evil hearts of fallen humanity, and has absolutely no relation to God or His purposes.

But you actually deny the last clause regularly, by identifying the honoring of “human autonomy” as the very "highest purpose" that in fact prevents God’s intervention most of the time. Thus we both believe that there are higher purposes that guide God's decisions to intervene or not. The difference between us does not lie in any of the questions of whether...

a) God is capable of intervening to prevent injustices;

b) God’s intervention or non-intervention is His prerogative to decide;

c) God makes such a decision, in each case, based upon His own set of priorities.

Our difference lies primarily in our identification of God’s priorities. I believe that every decision of God, to intervene or not, arises from His love for all parties concerned. You believe it is His commitment to something called “human autonomy” (which He violates in the few cases where His intervention is obvious—though you have done nothing in the way of explaining why God can intervene in the cases wherein He does so, but is incapable of intervention in the cases wherein He fails to do so).

Thus, while we both recognize that God’s non-intervention is caused by His precommitments—in my view, His commitment is to the ultimate well-being of His creatures; in yours, it is His commitment to a philosophical concept, to which He is not consistently committed (as in the cases of His actual intervention), and which, you admit, He will someday abandon altogether! Your position is riddled with too many loose ends and inconsistencies—and suffers too hostile a witness against it from the biblical data!

If you really think you have found scriptures that speak to the differences in our views, and which support yours, I am still waiting to see them presented.

[Paidion]

That being said, while I can fully agree with the non-bold part of your summation, I find it hard to believe that YOU even believe the bold part of your summation. How, in a world completely created by God, can anything whatsoever have 'absolutely no relation to God or His purposes'???

Yes, that's a common argument. "After all, God created people with free wills, and so God must be responsible for all the wickedness on the earth."

I don't buy that argument. It's passing the buck from one's personal responsibility for his sin to blaming God. It was pretty well what Adam did when God questioned him about his sin.

"The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate. (Genesis 3:12 )

Anyone who understands what it is to be a free will agent, understands that such agents and such alone are responsible for their actions and for the development of their characters --- taking into account their coöperation with the enabling grace of God, of course, with respect to improvement of their character, and moving toward conformity to the image of Christ.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

So all I can say is that in general, He respects the autonomy and free will of man, since they are his own attributes, and if man insists on exercising them instead of depending completely on God, then He will respect that, too. So He doe. sn’t often intervene

It will probably surprise you to know I agree with the above. However, you state that "He doesn’t often intervene" which appears to be an admission that He sometimes intervenes. And if He intervenes sometimes, it must be by His choice, to suit His purposes. Conversely, when He does not intervene, it must also be to suit His purpose. What do you believe that purpose might be?

Like you, I believe that God places high value on the freedom of the will, but He also has a veto over any action we might take. I agree He most often does not exercise that veto.

I find it strange that you do not allow for God to respect free-will in the afterlife, but you believe He uses a more onerous testing (as you euphemistically call it) than rape to win converts.

[Paidion]

I find it strange that you do not allow for God to respect free-will in the afterlife, but you believe He uses a more onerous testing (as you euphemistically call it) than rape to win converts.

Nope. I believe He respects free will in the after life, too. But just as He often exerts influence in this life to bring a person into submission to Him (often through His disciples as well as circumstances), so He will also exercise such influence in the after life, but a stronger influence, and one which is more enduring. I disbelieve that this influence is "force". God never forces the will. He influences it, and sometimes very strongly. I think Steve mentioned that His influence on the will of Baalam was pretty strong so that he prophesied only God's truth. (Only I don't think Steve called it "influence").

[Paidion]

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?

Is there not a distinct difference between God bringing a good result out of calamity, and His intending the calamity in order to bring about that good result? Thus I would not infer the latter merely from the fact that there were good results from a calamity.

Indeed, because causation is so complex, it is probably that some sort of good results from virtually every painful situation (though the bad results are usually quantitatively greater)

[TK]

Paidion wrote:

Is there not a distinct difference between God bringing a good result out of calamity, and His intending the calamity in order to bring about that good result?

I think this gets to the crux of the whole matter, and how it's answered results in the divergent views.

I saw a horrible auto accident on the way to work this morning- life flight was there and people were obviously killed or severely injured. Did CAUSE this calamity, perhaps robbing a young family of its mother or father for some higher purpose, or did this happen because we live in a fallen world?-- but, Praise God, He CAN redeem this circumstance.

TK

[mattrose]

Yes, that's a common argument. "After all, God created people with free wills, and so God must be responsible for all the wickedness on the earth."

I don't buy that argument. It's passing the buck from one's personal responsibility for his sin to blaming God. It was pretty well what Adam did when God questioned him about his sin.

Nothing in my statement declared that God is responsible (at least in the negative sense implied by your response) for all (or any) of the wickedness in the world. I simply stated that God could do something right now to end it, but chooses not to intervene. And I stated that His decision not to intervene (at least in the way we're suggesting) must be b/c He's smarter than us and sees a higher purpose in temporary non-intervention. This does not make Him responsible for wickedness. It makes Him wiser, longer-suffering, etc than we are.

I think, perhaps, one of the reasons you come across as so confident in your own take on these issues is b/c you never really seem to deal with the opposing views. You consistently change the wording/meaning of the other posters into something less likely or tasteful than what they wrote. This is by definition practicing the straw man method that, I believe, you warn others about.

[mattrose]

Paidion wrote:

Is there not a distinct difference between God bringing a good result out of calamity, and His intending the calamity in order to bring about that good result?

I think this gets to the crux of the whole matter, and how it's answered results in the divergent views.

I saw a horrible auto accident on the way to work this morning- life flight was there and people were obviously killed or severely injured. Did CAUSE this calamity, perhaps robbing a young family of its mother or father for some higher purpose, or did this happen because we live in a fallen world?-- but, Praise God, He CAN redeem this circumstance.

TK

I agree that's the crux, but I think there's actually a view in between them that is worth including.

View 1 says bad stuff happens b/c of man. God is bound to His decision to make men autonomous and as a result is in some sense powerless to stop pain. But He is able to bring about some good through the midst of pain.

View 2 says bad stuff happens b/c of man. God could intervene anytime (He obviously does sometimes) since He is all-powerful. But He often decides not to intervene because He recognizes that good results often come through pain.

View 3 says bad stuff happens b/c of man & God. God prefers this method (using pain to bring about a greater good) of sanctification and so wanted all along for creation to grow in this way.

[Paidion]

Steve, I am going to deal with only bite-size chunks of your post at a time. I find this easier for my mentality. Perhaps in that way I can avoid bringing up "silly" irrelevant material.

You still seem to fail to differentiate between child abuse and normal parental discipline. Even the non-Christian world can discern the difference, and so I am truly surprised that a respected Christian teacher fails to see the difference except "as one only in degree and not in kind." Though there are a few in the world who classify ALL physical discipline as "child abuse", the vast majority can differentiate between spanking a child and beating him to a bloody pulp. The difference is that one does serious physical damage and causes the child EXTREME pain, while the other does not. To most of us this is a difference in kind and not merely in degree.Thus we have child-abuse laws, which are not applied to parental spanking, but are applied to severe beatings by parents.

You made the following statement in your recent post:

God’s ends may be accomplished by whatever means are not in conflict with His character.

I fully concur with this statement!

So what kind of means WOULD BE in conflict with His character? Obviously, for you, accomplishing His ends by sending (or "allowing) rapists, murderers, and torturers to assault people, doesn't qualify. Would His promotion of (or "allowing of") adultery for a higher purpose, qualify as a means in conflict with His character? I don't see why it would, since you believe the far greater sins of rape, murder, and torture in order to accomplish his ends, do not qualify as a means in conflict with His character.

Try as I might, looking at it from your point of view, I can't think of ANY means which God could use which would be in conflict with His character.

I think the main problem with your position is your insistence that God has to have a higher purpose for any atrocities which he "permits" to occur.

[steve]

My actual remark about a difference "only in degree and not in kind," was not in any context defining child abuse. It was responding to your admission that God allowed a messenger of Satan to buffet Paul (probably with partial blindness) for his benefit—but (as you claimed), that is a different matter than God allowing an assailant to gouge Paul's eyes out with a hot poker.

My response had nothing to do with defining "child abuse." My contention was that the difference between God allowing Satan to partially blind Paul, on one hand, and God allowing a man to completely blind Paul, on the other hand, was a difference "only in degree and not in kind." Incidentally, my statement is transparently true, given the universally agreed-upon meaning of all the words in the sentences posted.

However, when we move to the subject of defining child abuse, we change categories completely. There is no more or less "child abuse" in God allowing one assailant (Satan) to partially, and miserably, blind Paul than there is in God allowing another assailant (human) to completely blind Paul. This is indeed a difference only in degree—which is why it is irrelevant to the definition of child abuse, which is differently determined. Let me clarify—

If one of these actions on God's part would be child abuse, then so would the other. If one of them is NOT child abuse, than no case could rationally be made for labeling the other by that term. If a human parent allowed a malicious enemy to partially blind his child, would you be slow in calling this "child abuse"? If you are honest with yourself, you will have to admit that either both of these actions are child abuse, or both of them are not child abuse. They differ from one another only in degree...like the difference between sawing off one of your daughter's arms and sawing them both off! Either an act is justified by the needs of the child, or it is malicious. If the former, then neither action can be called "abuse"—but if the latter, both must be regarded as abuse. This is why they do not differ in category from each other, as discipline differs in category from abuse.

I have never said that the difference between justifiable infliction of pain and child abuse is "one only in degree and not in kind." You are the one whose views are accurately described in those terms. It is your view that the infliction of a small degree of pain is not abuse, but an increase in degree beyond a certain point becomes abuse. Thus, by your definitions, the difference between justifiable discipline and abuse is a matter only of degree (i.e., of painfulness).

My position (as I have clearly stated) is just the opposite. My definitions of "discipline" and "abuse" differ from one another in "kind" or "specie"—not only in "degree" or "magnitude." On May 12th (page four of this thread), I wrote (but you did not respond to my question):

When is extreme pain, inflicted by a father upon his son, "child abuse"?

When the frontier father had no choice but to saw off a son's limb, without anesthesia, in order to prevent the spreading of gangrene—was that "child abuse"?

When I gave permission for the doctors to re-break my son's broken arm, in order to set it properly—was that "child abuse"?

When the Father subjected Jesus to the torture of the cross—was that "child abuse"?

You say you draw the line where any sensible person would draw it, but, as it turns out, you draw no clear line at all. You have provided no working definition of "child abuse"—the emotionally-charged word you use to overthrow the plain teachings of scripture.

I will give you my definition of child abuse. Abuse occurs when unnecessary pain and suffering (of any degree) are inflicted upon a child without a mind to bringing about a greater and necessary good.

Do parents stab their children with knives? Not unless those parents are surgeons seeking to remove cancerous tumors from their children.

Do they break their bones? Not unless they deem it necessary for the child's long-term welfare.

Do they stand-by and allow tormentors to taunt, strike and bully their children? Perhaps, if the Father is a training officer in charge of toughening-up his special forces son to withstand abuse if taken prisoner by the enemy.

On the other hand, to maliciously tease and deprive a child of a toy that is continuously offered and then pulled back from him may be a genuine case of "child abuse." Your definition of child abuse has no foundation in reality, and thus provides no foundation to bear the theological freight that you are loading upon it.

As you can see, I did define child abuse, as follows: "I will give you my definition of child abuse. Abuse occurs when unnecessary pain and suffering (of any degree) are inflicted upon a child without a mind to bringing about a greater and necessary good."

You are still neglecting the challenges presented to you, pretending you have not been answered, providing no scriptural justification for your position.

You wrote:

[quoting me[: "God’s ends may be accomplished by whatever means are not in conflict with His character."

I fully concur with this statement!

So what kind of means WOULD BE in conflict with His character? Obviously, for you, accomplishing His ends by sending (or "allowing) rapists, murderers, and torturers to assault people, doesn't qualify. Would His promotion of (or "allowing of") adultery for a higher purpose, qualify as a means in conflict with His character? I don't see why it would, since you believe the far greater sins of rape, murder, and torture in order to accomplish his ends, do not qualify as a means in conflict with His character.

Try as I might, looking at it from your point of view, I can't think of ANY means which God could use which would be in conflict with His character.

I think the main problem with your position is your insistence that God has to have a higher purpose for any atrocities which he "permits" to occur.

For God to permit the devil to exist, for Him to permit Adam and Eve to sin, for God to permit every sin and atrocity of man, without exercising His option of intervention, is either purposeful (for a good purpose), or else purposeless (irresponsible). That is the weakness of your position. In your view God makes choices not to intervene, but He is not guided by any good purpose (another weakness of your position is its inconsistency, because you admit that there are times when His choice to intervene or not to intervene is, in fact, guided by a good purpose—e.g., the discipline of His children).

What action of God toward mankind is consistent with God's character? I would say anything that is consistent with His love for His creatures. Such love may be exhibited in various ways, especially in promoting the short-term, the long-term and the eternal good of people. That long-term good may be accomplished through any degree of suffering has already been established in this discussion, so that should not continue to be raised as a question in the future. If great suffering (whether inflicted by sinners, weather, viral epidemics, accidents, etc.) can produce great benefits, then the allowing (that is, the not preventing) of such suffering (and of its causes) is consistent with God's character.

You wrote:

Is there not a distinct difference between God bringing a good result out of calamity, and His intending the calamity in order to bring about that good result?

Yes. To me, the difference appears to be: In the first case, God is uncaring and uninvolved in the process, and does what he can to clean up the mess (no explanation is offered as to why God, who is capable of cleaning up the mess afterward, was not capable of preventing the mess in the first place). In the second case, God's love governs His universe. This alone provides a basis for His children's believing that He can make good on His many promises—since they believe that He can do so, and will do so in every case where the doing of it will not conflict with His loving purposes.

The verses we discussed on the previous page (e.g., Hebrews 12; 2 Corinthians 4; etc.) definitely support the second option. So does the case I mentioned of Manasseh. I will cite it below:

2 Chronicles 33:10-13—

And the LORD spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not listen. Therefore the LORD brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon. Now when he was in affliction, he implored the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.

I make the following observations:

1. The LORD brought upon Manasseh the troubles that led to his captivity;

2. It was for a purpose (suggested by the word "Therefore the LORD brought...");

3. God's purpose was a good one, leading Manasseh (an unbeliever, in this case!) to repentance;

4. The events that God used included the warlike aggression (sinfulness) and abusive brutality (Hooks? Ouch!) of the Assyrian army.

This is not an isolated case. It is just one that I had brought up earlier.