Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | John Reformed | 99053 | ||
Dear Colin, Please try to understand...It is not my desire to be contentious. My desire is to glorify God in the midst of the saints. I'm certain that you share that same desire and sought to do so in your reply to parable. I just happen to think you are mistaken in your view. It is my view that God dos not long for anything. At least not in the way you meant in your post. The Bible does say that God longs to be gracious to you, but, the meaning of the word "longs" denotes patient waiting. The way we come to know God is through His Word. To the extent that we properly interpret scripture, that right understanding will be the measure of our success. It is crucial that we strive to understand Him as He is. In that spirit of christian fellowship I have written you my reading of Gen 6:3 The Hebrew word for "strive" is "din". It means to judge; administer, dispute etc. Webster's defines the english word "strive" as To struggle in opposition; to be in contention or dispute; to contend; to contest; -- followed by against or with before the person or thing opposed; as, strive against temptation; strive for the truth. I realize that God takes no pleasure from the destruction of the wicked, however, Gen 6:3 does not convey the idea of a helpless God grieving over the stubborn opposition of a wicked race of people; longing for their salvation but powerless to persuade them to repent. Our God is omnipotent and accomplishes everything to which He stretches forth His hand to accomplish. Is 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; Compare your interpretation of Gen 6:3 with the above verse. Do they harmonize with one another? John |
||||||
2 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | flinkywood | 99059 | ||
Thanks, John. I agree that God is not a helpless griever, and I think your point is excellent in that we can't possibly know God's infinite comlexity by intellect alone, but by the simplicity of a relationship based on faith through love ("For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Gal 5.6 NIV). And no, God is certainly not powerlesss to persuade us to repent, otherwise there would have been no Jesus. We get our capacity to love from God (1 John 4:19), as well as our ability to know Him, (Psa 51:6 "Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom."). Yet, though God has equipped us for knowledge, He also cautions us to trust in Him with all our hearts and not to lean on our own undertanding (Prov 3.5). So there is a danger in philosophising scripture, I mean reducing God's grace, His love, to a formula: "This proves that He is responsible for evil", or "God didn't actually give us freedom of choice." Now, love involves choice, which makes it precious. And since love is supreme (1 Cor 13: 1-13), we can't have God pamper us too much. God, in Texas terms, keeps a stretch on love so that we don't turn out like those spoiled brats in the wilderness. If God is love and love involves choice then God is not a puppeteer, which means that man chooses his poison, not God. If I understand your drift, you might be arguing that God is the author of all, both good and evil. From the standpoint of love I disagree, so I can't blame God for the evil of men. From the standpoint of knowledge, however, I could make a case that God knew all from beginning to end and therefore owns the good, the bad and the ugly, but I don't buy it. To argue that because God is outside of time, omniscient, eternal, all-powerful thus makes Him responsible for my stealing a squirtgun at Lampstons is pointless (and silly!). The fact and attributes of love destroy this argument. There is a boxing in of God that happens on this side of eternity; I think that because we have this tendency He has asked us to depend on His love, rather than on knowledge. "Do not all charms fly at the touch of cold philosphy?" (From "Endymion", by John Keats). Colin. |
||||||
3 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | Emmaus | 99062 | ||
Colin, Excellent post. I even liked the Keats quote, though I am not a big fan of the Romantics. Emmaus |
||||||
4 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | flinkywood | 99091 | ||
Thanks, Steve. I'm 1/4 through that terrific Belloc essay on Islam you URL'd me: (http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT) A great book to go with it is Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East." Lewis says that Islam's early embrace of classical learning was because its theology emphasized knowledge as a route to the divine. I like the Romantics, sometimes. Colin. |
||||||
5 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | Emmaus | 99102 | ||
Colin, I own the book by Lewis. I bought it and read it shortly after 9-11. Lewis also emphasisized the victim status that Muslims identify with and the fact that they project all their anger outward at others instead of at their own corrupt rulers as a big part of the problem(p 22-23). He also mentions the lack of distinction between God and Ceasar or Church and State in the Muslim world(p 100-103) and the lumping of slaves, women and unbelievers together in their thought patterns(p 67, 94). Emmaus |
||||||
6 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | flinkywood | 99135 | ||
Steve, I'm also in process of reading Lewis. I remember early on, after 9-11, that Bin Laden said (I paraphrase), "The difference between George Bush and me is that he loves life, and I love death." It makes no sense that anyone would want to join that club. Colin. |
||||||