Does GOD want some people poor/sick/defenseless?

[steve]

General notice:

By mutual agreement, Paidion and I have agreed to edit this thread, since we have been the two primary participants. I have already removed many paragraphs from many of my posts, and will be trimming back even further. The thread became repetitious and too unfriendly for both of our tastes, so we are hoping to edit it down to the principal necessary contents. The following is what I consider to be my final summar of points I have wished to affirm on this topic:

1. God is sovereign and all powerful, doing whatever He pleases;

2. This means that God can intervene in the affairs of man whenever He pleases;

3. Since God is a wise and loving God, His intervention in the affairs of man is governed by His good purposes for men;

4. When God does not intervene, this is also by His choice, according to His good purposes;

5. God’s non-intervention can result in sinners committing terrible injustices, causing great suffering to their victims;

6. God’s non-intervention can also result in storms, epidemics, falling objects, misdirected cars and planes, etc. taking their courses unrestrained, also bringing suffering to innocent victims;

7. All such sufferings, whether endured by believers or non-believers, occur, in part, because God does not choose to intervene in the situations wherein He could have prevented the sufferings;

8. In each of these situations, God could have intervened, but did not choose to do so. Thus, it was His will not to intervene, and the outcome is that which he chose to permit to exist by His non-intervention;

9. This does not mean that God approved of the motives or endorsed the actions of persons with whom He chose not to interfere. It only means that He did not choose to prevent the outcome;

10. The believer is assured that his sufferings (i.e., God’s non-intervention to protect him) are intended by God for the believer’s good and God’s glory (and there are also known cases of God’s redemptive purposes in the sufferings of unbelievers);

11. Since God has made promises of provision and protection to His children (contingent, of course, upon His ultimate purposes) Christians must believe that God is capable of fulfilling those promises (which often require His direct intervention to prevent harm);

12. Suffering is not always evil or undesirable (e.g., surgical procedures that are meant to heal; the muscular pain involved in body-building; or the spanking intended to correct a child’s self-destructive behavior). Thus "the problem of suffering" is an entirely different one than "the problem of evil," though people often do not see the difference.

[Suzana]

10. The believer is assured that his sufferings (i.e., God’s non-intervention to protect him) are intended by God for the believer’s good and God’s glory (and there are also known cases of God’s redemptive purposes in the sufferings of unbelievers);

11. Since God has made promises of provision and protection to His children (contingent, of course, upon His ultimate purposes) Christians must believe that God is capable of fulfilling those promises (which often require His direct intervention to prevent harm);

Just an observation (particularly referring to the parts I emphasised):
I have a feeling that, with our focus so often centred on ourselves, as we struggle to try and find what might be God's purpose in a certain adverse circumstance, & what good may ultimately result to us - we may not think to consider that whatever the circumstance is, there may be times when perhaps the primary reason for God allowing it may not be necessarily for our benefit, but for someone else's.
Certainly God would be looking for spiritual growth in us, (Heb 12:11; Rom 5:3,4) & of course this would be for our good, but perhaps there could be times when this is just a side-benefit, & God may be using us in the first instance to accomplish His will in benefiting others, & advancing His kingdom.

I know this has been touched on before in this thread, but it's just something I found myself thinking while reading.

Steve, I also want to add that I have found your laying out of the case very helpful, so I certainly am thankful that you did take the time to do so.

[darinhouston]

Steve, I also want to add that I have found your laying out of the case very helpful, so I certainly am thankful that you did take the time to do so.

Dittos

[Michelle]

Steve, I also want to add that I have found your laying out of the case very helpful, so I certainly am thankful that you did take the time to do so.

Dittos

Same here.

[Michelle]

I realize that this subject might have run its course, but I have a question that has been bugging me for a few days.

Paidion, last Saturday (May 9) you posted this:

1. He respects the free will He has given man, perhaps the chief way in which man was created in His image, and thus He doesn't usually prevent man's inhumanity to man. He seldom intervenes in wars, for example.

How do you know He doesn't usually prevent man's inhumanity to man? Let's say He prevents a criminal from breaking into your home and brutally attacking you to steal your computer as you sit reading this now. You would be totally unaware, wouldn't you?

If you remember about a decade ago, Al Qaeda bombed the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. My cousin's husband had an appointment there at the moment of the blast, but the traffic was unusually heavy that day (black humor: perhaps because of the extra car bombers?), so John was delayed and was unscathed by the attack. Those of us who love this couple and love the Lord, see His hand of protection in this seeming coincidence.

Months later, however, my cousin and her children were bound, gagged, and robbed of most of their possessions, including my cousin's wedding rings and the couple's car, which the bandits used to haul off their stuff. Apparently my cousin and her family were 50/50 when it comes to God's intervention toward the acts of Muslims against Americans in Nairobi. But maybe not. Maybe they were spared even more acts of brutality that they are unaware of.

I guess I'm not saying that perhaps we all are protected about half the time, or even better, but I'm not sure I can say "seldom" or "not usually" either. How can you be so sure?

[steve]

Brother, I hope you know I love you! I have no desire to be in conflict with you. You are a man of God.

[Paidion]

I feel exactly the same way concerning you.

I received your PM, and replied, but for some reason my reply has not departed yet.

[Homer]

Paidion, et al,

I found your discussion interesting regarding our mental decline as we age. Being a tad bit slow myself, I am still thinking about comments to make when you guys appear to have all but wrapped up the debate. Now you are down to making nice to each other and I'm trying to keep the pot boiling.

Earlier (if you can remember ) 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? Thus I would not infer the latter merely from the fact that there were good results from a calamity.

What if God brought about a calamity that served two purposes? A "two-fer" that not only served His purposes with the people He afflicted, but was intended for the benefit of another group of people? That is just what Paul said God did:

1 Corinthians 10 (New International Version)

1. For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2.They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3. They all ate the same spiritual food 4. and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. 6. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." 8. We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9. We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. 11. These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!

(My apologies for using the NIV; it was inadvertent)

And weren't God's people carried away into captivity to Babylon, with who knows how many atrocities committed, by the free-will actions of the Babylonians? And God not only permitted this, but also claimed credit for it, as though He did it Himself? And How is He responsible for it, if not by His permissive will?

[selah]

Paidion, et al,

I found your discussion interesting regarding our mental decline as we age. Being a tad bit slow myself, I am still thinking about comments to make when you guys appear to have all but wrapped up the debate. Now you are down to making nice to each other and I'm trying to keep the pot boiling.

Earlier (if you can remember ) 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? Thus I would not infer the latter merely from the fact that there were good results from a calamity.

What if God brought about a calamity that served two purposes? A "two-fer" that not only served His purposes with the people He afflicted, but was intended for the benefit of another group of people? That is just what Paul said God did:

1 Corinthians 10 (New International Version)

1. For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2.They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3. They all ate the same spiritual food 4. and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. 6. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." 8. We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9. We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. 11. These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!

(My apologies for using the NIV; it was inadvertent)

And weren't God's people carried away into captivity to Babylon, with who knows how many atrocities committed, by the free-will actions of the Babylonians? And God not only permitted this, but also claimed credit for it, as though He did it Himself? And How is He responsible for it, if not by His permissive will?

Well..... I've been reading and following all of you and...

this post from Homer comes close to considering my original question. My question has to do with this recent experience:

My fellowship family have and are (currently) walking with me through my infirmity and some have told me that THEY are growing in the LORD and THEY feel blessed. A couple have actually thanked me for being in need.

So...I began to wonder if God is using my infirmity to (1) humble me and teach me things but also to (2) exercise my brother's and sister's wisely managed benevolence while also teaching them things (somethings known by me and somethings not).

Thus, Homer's question, and I quote Homer...

What if God brought about a calamity that served two purposes? A "two-fer" that not only served His purposes with the people He afflicted, but was intended for the benefit of another group of people?

Thanks Homer, for helping me find the words for my question.
Selah*

[Paidion]

I will also give an outline of what I believe on the topic which Steve and I discussed.

1.God is omniscient and omnipotent. This does not imply that He knows what is logically impossible to know, or is able to do what is logically impossible to do.

2.God created man as a free, autonomous being who could choose to submit to God’s will and act accordingly, or to serve himself in a way independent of God.

3.In the Garden of Eden, man chose to disobey God and to be persuaded by the lies of Satan.

4.As a result, all of nature (including man) “fell” from God’s original purposes for it.
a.---Man inherited the sinful nature biologically from Adam and Eve. This nature means man has the propensity to sin, including committing atrocities against other.
b.---Mammals were created to consume vegetable material, but some of them changed in nature over the centuries, beginning to devour other mammals. Some of them developed fangs and claws which equipped them to fight and kill. Mosquitoes, created to suck the juices of plants in order to produce their young, began to suck blood for that purpose. (Even today, if mosquitoes are isolated, they will suck the juices of plants and produce their young thereby.
c.---The weather on the earth is significantly different from what it was prior to the world wide flood, and is generally more dangerous to the animal kingdom, including man.

5.Since the fall of man, God, in general has adopted a “hand-off policy” with regard to intervention in fallen nature. But there are exceptions. He sometimes intervenes in a way which delivers man from his trouble. It is not clear why He intervenes is a few cases, but not in others. In reading the OT, it seems as if He intervened often, but of course, most of the cases in which He did not intervene, were not recorded.
a.---Kathryn Kuhlman, through whom God healed many people, said the first thing she was going to ask God when she saw Him was why, when He so clearly healed so many people in her meetings, had healed only a small percentage of those who sought healing.
b.---God’s non-intervention does not imply that He is incapable of intervening in some situations. Nor does it imply that He doesn’t care. Nor does it imply that His non-intervention is without GENERAL purpose, but there is no higher purpose for each individual case of non-intervention.
c.---God’s usual non-intervention allows sinners to commit great atrocities, causing great suffering and/or death to their victims.
d.---God’s usual non-intervention allows floods, fire, falling objects, attacks from animals, disease germs and bacteria, etc, to bring suffering and death to people.

6.It is not that God chooses NOT to intervene in particular cases, but rather chooses TO intervene in specific cases for His own mysterious reasons. His non-intervention is simply His usual modus operandi in letting fallen nature takes its course.

7. God will intervene more frequently in the affairs of man in the time prior to Christ's coming, in order to bring about His intentions for the end times. Christ will rule together with the overcoming saints in the millenium which follows.

8. Most of God’s works in the world are not miraculous intervention in the laws of nature or thwarting the free will of man. Rather they are working WITHIN the minds and hearts of His people. When we read the words following the statement “God works everything together for good for those who love God, for those who are called according to His purpose,” (Rom 8:28), we see that Paul is speaking of God working these good things WITHIN the called individuals who love God.

9. God OFTEN brings good out of the suffering of people, particularly Christ’s disciples, but sometimes non-disciples as well. This does not imply that He created the suffering or allowed the suffering in order to produce those good results.

10. God's sovereignty in the world does not consist of His meticulous involvement in every detail in life, but rather He ensures that His great Plan of the Ages comes about by His work with and within His people and in coöperation with their free will. In addition, God has placed limits upon what He allows man in general to do. For example, I do not think God would allow mankind to entirely annihilate themselves with nuclear weapons. But within those limits, whatever they are, man freely exercises his will in general without God's interference. Yet God WILL intervene more frequently in the realm of the miraculous during the end times.