The Goodness of God
Posted by Steve - July 30, 2008
“God is good” is a statement that no Christian would argue with. But often, the way we actually talk about the goodness of God completely redefines the word “good”. Bouncing off some recent personal experiences, Ray and Steve discuss whether or not our human definition of “good” is accurate when it comes to describing our Father. Do tragedies come from God? Does God bring hardship into our lives in order to bring about some greater good? The thoughts Ray and Steve discuss in this episode might surprise you.
Beyond the Box is the podcast of Raborn Johnson and Steve Sensenig. We have been encouraging each other in the journey outside the bounds of institutional religion for several years now and share many of our candid thoughts and questions in our podcast.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I listned to the podcast and you guys are heretics! Nah just kidding, but I can’t allow you guys to keeping picking on my Calvin! He is my homeboy and I have the TULIP to prove it! Now on to the questions. I will provide about 4 scriptures and I want to know how you deal with them. This isn’t combative (sometimes electronic conversation does that) but I know you guys to be brothers who really deal with the scriptures unbiasedly (not like many in the Reformed Camp I roll with).
Exodus 4:11
Isaiah 45-7
Amos 3:6
John 9:1-7
Phillipans 1:29 (especially this one and Exodus 4 and John 9)
I can’t reconcile that view. None of these people chose these it is God who caused it.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Hey did I ask the wrong question? I haven’t seen a response yet. Thanks.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:21 am
Lionel,
Please know that there is no such thing as an “off-limits” question here. To be honest, I knew that your question would require some time reading and grasping the various Scriptures and therefore my answer couldn’t be quite as “off the cuff”. I started to give you a quick reply earlier just to let you know that I hadn’t forgotten you, but decided I would just wait until I or Steve gave a full response. I realize now I should have at least let you know that you had not been forgotten. I will try to do this in the future. I just got done reading the Scriptures you referred to. Several interesting passages. Unfotunately, I have just stopped at my computer en route to work, so I’m going to put you off just a little longer. I will try to post something after I get off of work. I won’t be home until around 9pm, so I will try to have something up after that time. Thanks for your patience and your thought-provoking questions. I’m glad that you’re on the journey with us to help us all think these things through more thoroughly.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Lionel, sorry we haven’t responded. Raborn said it quite well. We both knew that your question did not deserve an “off the cuff” answer, and I have been taking the time to look at the passages you raised and give them serious consideration.
I have some thoughts, but I want to formulate them a bit more before I respond to you.
Thanks for listening, bro, and don’t worry. We’re not dissing Calvin
Just was teasing you a bit in the podcast, but was addressing a more general perception. Not anything in particular you had said.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
No doubt. I will await you response. BTW I also know (or at least thought) you guys were just having fun. I laughed with you.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Lionel,
Thanks so much for your patience. I am going to attempt to respond, but let me say that I will be the first to acknowledge that my answers are neither conclusive nor airtight.
Ex 4:11
“The LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” NASU
I think the fact that “him” is italicized (meaning it’s not in the original text) is pretty significant. This can actually change the whole meaning of this verse. I think that the Lord could simply be saying here that He created everyone, both persons who are currently mute and persons who are not (etc.); not that He created them to be mute, deaf, etc. He thus could be showing the absurdity of Moses’ trying to tell Him something as if He did not already know it.
I believe that we kind of addressed the John 9 passage already in the podcast. However, in addition to what was already said there, it is interesting to note that Jesus talks about the will of God as being to manifest the works of God in this man, and then in the next verse He heals Him, thus displaying the “works of God”. So it seems that the “works of God” are to heal, deliver, etc. I think that context here is very important. If Jesus had said that this man’s blindness was God’s work in His life and then passed him by, I would definitely reassess what I am saying. But, instead Jesus heals the man as the out-working of the works of God.
As to Phillippians 1:29, I once again think that context is of the utmost importance. Verse 28 describes what Paul means by suffering “for His sake”. Here is the full context:
Phil 1:27-30
27 Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; 28 in no way alarmed by your opponents — which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. 29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me. NASU
It seems that Paul was talking about being persecuted for the cause of Christ by physically present persons. I do not take this to mean sickness, etc. Paul gives examples when he recounts some of his experiences to the church at Corinth. I have no problem believing that persecution is a very real factor for every believer in some form or other. But, I believe that persecution is defined not by physical ailments, but rather by verbal or physical opposition from those opposed to the message of Christ.
I hope this helps. I am leaving the other Scriptures for the time being to see if Steve wants to address them or add anything further. Let me just say that I have come to the place of viewing Jesus as my hermeneutic or interpretive lens through which I view all of Scripture. This is why I believe that Hebrews 1:1 is so vital. If Jesus is the highest and ultimate revelation of God to us (even greater than Scripture itself), then I believe that we must interpret everything (including the words of Scripture) through the life, ministry, words, works, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and present ministry of Jesus. When I am confronted with anything that seems to oppose Father’s revelation in Jesus, I am faced with either rejecting it or setting it on the “I don’t know yet” shelf in my heart. I trust that all things will one day be reconciled, but until then I stick with the revelation I see of God in Jesus.
Thanks so much Lionel for your honest questions. They are always welcome here. I hope that we can learn from each other as the Spirit inspires us to sharpen each others iron
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Hey let me ask. Are you guys into the “open theism” view? Just curious. Because my response would only be talking past someone who holds to that view or is at least open to it. I couldn’t tell that is why I am asking. I think you guys mentioned something about God’s sovereingty and yeah we guys who hold a more Calvinistic view would say “nothing” happens in light of God’s sovereingty. I may need to get some N.T Wright material and work through some of that to give a proper response. Not trying to put you in the box but my response to Exodus 4 would go along the lines “all things are done according to predetrmined and purposed will of God” which we may disagree on. Thanks again for the response. I am enjoying the podcast. God bless you fellas and congrats on the new job. God gives us much more than we would ever deserve. Much love! (p.s maybe it was Steve).
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Lionel,
You said:
“I think you guys mentioned something about God’s sovereingty and yeah we guys who hold a more Calvinistic view would say “nothing” happens in light of God’s sovereingty.”
What did you mean by “‘nothing’ happens in light of God’s sovereignty.”
As to open theism, I am sympathetic towards this view, but am still working through the implications of what it all might mean. I definitely do not believe that the future is completely pre-determined, but at the same time I am not sure that I completely embrace the idea that God knows much of the future only as possibilities as opposed to actualities. Personally, I like the fact that open theism seems to view God as a more personal, active agent in creation, whereas the classical view of divine foreknowledge seems to me to present a God who is sort of just toying with us while He sits aloof watching unmoved by a drama He has seen played out in His mind over and over. I really don’t like referring to God as the “unmoved Mover” as the doctrine of the immutability of God seems to suggest. I believe that Jesus is THE revelation of God and when we look at Him we see a person who is genuinely moved by the choices and condition of people. For instance, on multiple occasions Jesus was moved by compassion, He was moved to tears by the grief of His friends over Lazarus, He was moved to action by the zeal of His Father’s house being turned into a den of thieves, etc. I truly believe that God is a personal being who earnestly desires relationship with us as opposed to a dictator who only desires (and orchestrates)our obedience.
I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from (of course I can’t speak for Steve). I really am glad we are having this interaction. Lionel, you are a breath of fresh air. It’s so great to be able to discuss these things without feeling like you are dodging flaming arrows. Thanks again!
December 10th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Hey friends. I really, really enjoyed and was encouraged by your discussion of The Goodness of God. When it was over I wrote myself a note to burn this one to CD so my son (who’s 20 months old now) can listen to it someday. I think you cut right to the heart of our freedom in Christ here and I appreciated it. In fact, I just started a Facebook group called “Beyond The Box Podcast Appreciation Society” as a way of sharing this with my friends and family.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Sweet Chip! Let me know what your son thinks (in a few years)!
Thanks for sharing it with others…that is super!
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
It’s interesting (and I haven’t finished listening to the full podcast) – but the very reason you give for not believing in the classical idea of the Sovereignty of God is the very reason I believe in that. By definition, if all things God gives are good, then we can thank Him and and for ALL things (truly ALL things). Even Job – though Satan lost all those things – even he received good from God. And it NECESSITATED what Satan did to Job. It was only by Satan doing what He did (all by God’s permission, remember) that Job learned what He learned. Even the wrath of man will praise Him and THE REMAINDER OF WRATH WILL HE RESTRAIN.
I think it’s Isaiah 49:10 that says that God does indeed do ALL His pleasure. That doesn’t do away with man’s free will, but it does draw the line at what man can actually accomplish.
Romans 8:28, 2 Cor 4:15 (in answer to your objection to all things being for the glory of God – there is a compound purpose), 2 Cor 5:18 (a little weak, maybe), 2 Cor 9:8, Ephesians 5:20 (!) etc… Now, Lamentations says God doesn’t WILLINGLY afflict men, but it doesn’t say He doesn’t afflict them, either. He makes peace and creates evil. All things work together (ultimately) for good to those that love God AND are called according to His purpose. In other words (making it almost crudely simple), if you obey God and follow Him, everything ultimately WILL be for your good because you seek His will. That, to me, sounds a lot like Psalm 37:4.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Sorry to make multiple responses, but remember that the blind man was blind SINCE BIRTH. God did it. Jesus admits that. For a time, that affliction did EXACTLY what you say sickness doesn’t give. I know of men who pleaded with men to have something taken away but for whom God DIDN’T act as they had hoped (Paul’s thorn in the flesh comes to mind as well). When God afflicts men or disciplines them (shall we receive good at the hand of the lord and not evil…in all these things, Job did not sin), it is for a higher purpose – a higher good than man can see at that time.
It isn’t from the bible, but there is a quote from Tyndale’s “Obedience of a Christian Man” that goes like this:
“If God promise riches, the way thereto is poverty. Whom he loveth, him he chasteneth: whom he exalteth, he casteth, down: whom he saveth, he damneth first. He bringeth no man to heaven, except he send him to hell first. If he promise life, he slayeth first: when he buildeth, he casteth all down first. He is no patcher; he cannot build on another man’s foundation.”
The point is that the good that man looks for is often temporal (and often not even really good at all) and at odds with God’s grander plan. He looks deeper and further and broader than we can – and so anytime we think God has not provided, if we believe God, then it isn’t because He hasn’t but because He is working a “more excellent” glory that requires something be removed first.
God looks on the heart, but man looks on the outward appearance.