The Goodness of God
Jul.30, 2008 in
Podcast Episodes
“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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 35:42 — 24.5MB) | Embed
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.
January 20th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Lionel and William. I would not spend much time arguing with these people. I have learned from the Rob Bell camp that people like Steve and Raborn NEVER say what they truly mean. It is clear Steve is an open-theist and a universalist. Of course, none of these realities are possible if someone is a true student of God’s word. But, there are many who parade themselves as an angel of light when in reality they are nothing but a ravenous wolf.
Read Lamentations 3:37-45. God is sovereign. He has ordained all things to come to pass. Acts 2:23. God ordained for the murder of His only begotten Son. Just because God ordains certain things to come to pass does not make Him guilty of the sins that caused what He ordained. This is the stumbling blocks for these people.
Steve and Raborn. You guys really need to let go of this ear-tickling philosophy you guys are espousing. It is heretical and wicked. Just because you baptize your teachings with the words God, Jesus, Bible, and other various Biblical words, DOES NOT QUALIFY what you say in the least as being FAITHFUL to what God has clearly revealed.
May I suggest you repent and believe the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, because if you believe in a god that is like anything you have said in your podcast and then supported in your words above in these replies, then it is plain and clear that you have an IDOL for your god.
If you are truly part of the covenant of grace, then know that your sins, past, present, and future, were atoned for by Jesus’ sacrifice before the foundation of the world was ever created. The open-theistic view of God teaches that God is not only NOT sovereign, but also not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. This of course describes man. Which is exactly what kind of “god” this is. A man-created one that fits well into man’s understanding.
RC Sproul said one time (paraphrased): A God who does not have anything to do with the suffering people go through in this life is a God that provides no meaning for much of life at all.
January 20th, 2012 at 9:31 am
Caleb, your comment saddens me on a couple of levels, and I simply want to respond briefly to let you know that you are heard. I appreciate your passion for the Lord and for truth, but I think your response to Lionel and William here misses the mark on a couple of key points.
First of all, I’m saddened by your comment because your accusation that Raborn and I don’t really say what we mean is simply not true. We are completely open (no pun intended!) with our listeners about the questions we are asking, where we are in the process, and what we think about the topics we discuss. There’s no “bait and switch” here, and there’s no disguising our feelings about certain theological points.
In reality, this episode on which you’ve commented is several years old, and so without going back and listening, I am uncertain exactly where I was on my journey at the point of this podcast. However, I have clearly admitted on the podcast to being an Ultimate Reconciliationist (not the same as Universalism) and have not hidden that fact from our listeners at all!
As to Open Theism, I’m simply unable to reveal anything about my position on that because I’m not entirely sure. As Raborn said in the comments above, I’m sympathetic to some of the teaching of Open Theism, but I have not done enough study of 1) what it fully teaches, and 2) what all the ramifications are, in order to be able to say with conviction, “Yes, I believe in Open Theism.” I simply don’t know at this point. I’m actually more sympathetic to the notion that man misunderstood much of what God revealed for a very long time, and that it is more of a problem with man misunderstanding and accusing God than it is a question of whether or not God actually knows/determines the future.
The bottom line, Caleb, is that you are mixing together whether or not one believes in salvation through Jesus Christ with details about how all of that came about. If I were to claim that there were salvation through some means other than the death of Jesus on the cross, you would have plenty of justification (again, no pun intended!) to question my integrity as a believer. But questioning the details of what the Father knew about it, how the Father knew it, and what all that means is a completely different topic that is worth discussing.
Even more bluntly, to the point of this podcast, you seem to be saying that we are saying God is not good enough. In reality, it’s quite the opposite! We think God is better…way better…than we were ever taught.
I do remember this much clearly about the podcast: We believe that the definition many ascribe to the word “good” when it comes to God is not a definition of the word “good” at all. That much is also quite suitable for discussion, if you care to interact with it at all.
January 20th, 2012 at 10:24 am
Steve. Thank you for the measured response. It was very mature and rational. I appreciate that.
I agree fully about the notion of God being absolutely “good”. He is also “great”. Put these two together and we have “holy”. Something that God is apart from His creation. God is altogether holy, holy, holy. The only attribute of God that is mentioned in this manner.
Thank you for clarifying that this podcast was several years old. I should have thought about that. I apologize for ascribing what I said to you to the “here and now”.
As for your “universal reconcilationist” view though. Could you please provide Scriptural support for this? And I do not want to here the single “God is creating all things new” verse from Revelation. That is a singular verse that is taken and separated from its contextual intention and then misused by the Rob Bell crowd to justify the possibility of post-mortem salvation. It’s just another brand of heresy being re-hashed…
What needs to be considered is “what does the full counsel of God’s Word say?” We CAN NOT take one or two choice verses that we can twist and make to say what we want and then create a whole system of thought that ascribes realities to God that He never intended for us to come up with. Make sense?
Besides, Hell will contain an absence of God’s grace. The people that wind up in Hell will continue to sin and to hate God just as they did here in their earthly bodies. The difference between them from their life on earth vs eternity in Hell will simply be the absence of God’s common grace.
Again. I thank you for your ability to respond in a kind and mature way. I can confess I did not initially come across to you in the same manner. I am still growing in my walk with Christ. I am less sanctified in this area of my life.
Oh. And the standard for “good” comes from God. He is the standard by which we measure the word from.
This is why Romans 3:10-16 says what it does. Compared to God, NO ONE does good. No one is Righteous. No not one. This is why we need the imputed Righteousness of Christ that comes to us by faith alone.
Take care!
January 21st, 2012 at 12:54 am
Caleb, thanks for writing back. Sorry I’m just now getting a chance to sit down and respond. It’s been a long day at work!
I don’t for a moment expect to be able to convince you of my view on ultimate reconciliation, but I assure you it has much more support than just one verse! However, there is one very important thing to keep in mind when discussing the various views of eternal destiny: Anyone who is honest about their use of scripture in building a view of eternal destiny has to admit that there are some passages they “prefer” over others, and some that they downright have to almost ignore in order to hold to their view. Eternal conscious torment (often referred to as ECT) has its supporting verses. Annihilation also has its supporting verses. And Ultimate Reconciliation has its supporting verses. Any one of those views can be “proof-texted” from the Bible.
For me, I look at passages such as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, both of which draw a parallel between “all” dying in Adam and “all” being made alive in Christ. Absolutely no one argues that there are human beings exempt from the curse of Adam, and yet many redefine the second “all” (the “all” that are made alive in Christ) as being a subset of humans. I believe a more literal and a more faithful reading of those passages (especially when you see the many ways Paul keeps driving the point home in Romans 5) sees both “all” groups as truly being all people. Just as all humans died in Adam, so ultimately will all humans be made alive in Christ. These verses combined with such statements in scripture as “It is his will that none should perish, but that all (again there’s that “all”) should come to repentance” and “every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” form a grid (especially in the teaching of Paul) to see an ultimate reconciliation (not that the full means of that reconciliation or timetable of the same are revealed to us) of all that the Father created.
We actually spent the better part of the first half of 2011 on this podcast discussing Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins”, Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle’s book “Erasing Hell”, and I even recorded a conversation with Preston Sprinkle (a delightful conversation, actually!) where we discussed our differences with these passages. We have devoted hours upon hours of this podcast to this topic, complete with discussion of various scriptural passages related to it. I would encourage you to take the time to listen to some of those episodes if you want to know why I believe what I believe.
Ironically, you asked me for scripture to back up my beliefs, and yet you typed an entire paragraph stating with certainty things about hell that have absolutely no basis in scripture. I know of no verses at ALL that say any of the following:
Besides, Hell will contain an absence of God’s grace. The people that wind up in Hell will continue to sin and to hate God just as they did here in their earthly bodies. The difference between them from their life on earth vs eternity in Hell will simply be the absence of God’s common grace.
That paragraph that you typed, while common teaching, has no scriptural support whatsoever. In fact, some of it even contradicts some passages, such as Philippians 2 that I mentioned above (“EVERY knee will bow and every tongue confess”). Furthermore, you stated earlier that it is important to maintain a belief in the omnipresence of God. Yet you claim Hell is a place where God’s grace does not exist. Can God be omnipresent, and yet there be a place absent from his grace? By definition, “omnipresent” means that there cannot be such a place.
Finally, back to the issue of God’s goodness. You said:
[T]he standard for “good” comes from God. He is the standard by which we measure the word from.
Several problems with this statement. One is an interesting statement by Jesus: “If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give…” Look at what Jesus is saying. God’s goodness is not different from our concept of good. It is better. This is a significant difference! Similarly, in Isaiah when it says, “My ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts are higher than your thoughts” he is talking about mercy. He says, in effect, that the amount of mercy we would show other humans pales in comparison to the amount of mercy God would show! In other words, God is not just “good” in a way totally different from how we understand the word “good”. He is better!!!
When you say that God is the standard by which we measure good, you must then draw the following conclusions (if you accept that God has done the following things):
1. For me to withhold a good gift from my child who asks for it is good.
2. For me to withhold a remedy from my child for some illness or some other problem facing them, especially when they have asked for it, is good.
3. For me to kill my own child is good.
4. For me to pour out afflictions upon my own child is good.
The truth is, we actually have laws against parents doing those very things to their child. Why? Because it’s NOT good. To ascribe things such as that to God and say that means He is good is to redefine “good” as something other than “good”. At that point, words have no meanings, then, and we cannot know anything about God.
In your first comment, you said:
God ordained for the murder of His only begotten Son. Just because God ordains certain things to come to pass does not make Him guilty of the sins that caused what He ordained.
This is simply creating a “loophole”. You didn’t just say that God knew certain things would happen. You said he ordained them to happen. To say that someone can ordain something without being guilty of the deed is splitting hairs at best. I’m not even sure it qualifies as splitting hairs. To me, it is simply contradictory.
Thanks for the dialog. As I said, I don’t have any hopes of convincing you of my viewpoint. I would, however, suggest that it would be better to temper your view with a tad more humility with regard to 1) allowing for the possibility that you have misunderstood or misinterpreted the scripture, or 2) that the scripture is not as clear on some topics as we would like to think it is, and therefore we should more cautiously engage brothers who hold differing views.
In your original comment (and without further clarification or retraction), you have made the following accusations against me:
1. I am not a “true student of God’s Word” (what does that even mean, Caleb?)
2. I “parade…as an angel of light”, yet am really a “ravenous wol[f]”
3. I “never say what [I] truly mean” (in other words, I am a deceiver)
4. My teaching is “heretical and wicked”
5. My teaching is “not in the least…FAITHFUL to what God has clearly revealed”
6. I am an idolater
7. I am in sin and need to repent
8. I do not believe the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (what is the “true Gospel of Jesus Christ”, Caleb?)
These are serious accusations, Caleb, and ones that I take very seriously when they are leveled against me.
I will not return fire with fire by leveling any accusations of the sort against you. But like I said, this is why your original comment saddens me greatly. You don’t have to agree with me, but there is no need to speak in such authoritative terms on matters of honest debate, and in doing so, question the very salvation of someone who loves Jesus and follows him with humility and gentleness, seeking ever to be led by the Spirit and to display the fruit of the same. You may think you know me because you think you know people “like” me. But in reality, your comment shows that you don’t know me at all.
Be blessed, my brother, and follow after truth. But may I encourage you to exercise caution in what charges you bring against other brothers. And above all, exercise humility in your own convictions, acknowledging that maybe there is something you can learn from dialog with other brothers who come to different conclusions as you, yet love and study the very same Bible as you.
April 21st, 2015 at 6:34 am
So I have been enjoying your podcasts and your different take on things. However, I really struggle with the financial part of this episode. All the situations you mentioned I the podcasts were not functions of God but rather completely were acts of people’s voluntary will that effected you financially. So are you saying that they weren’t actually free to do (or not do) what they did because God actually made them do it to provide for you?
April 21st, 2015 at 6:38 am
By the way I enjoy your podcast and am slowly making my way through the ones I find interesting to see how you guys have ended up where you are at. I agreed with some of this episode. Certainly we try many people try to change the meaning of good when it comes to God. However, I think you guys go further than I would here. especially in the analogies where he makes others help you financially. This would be a blatant overriding of those individuals free will. I do not think God does that.
April 22nd, 2015 at 8:18 pm
Chris, I want to first of all acknowledge your comments. Thanks for listening. Unfortunately, this particular episode you’re commenting on is almost seven years old. While I remember some little bits of what we talked about, I would have to go back and re-listen to the entire thing to figure out what parts you’re referring to when you talk about “the analogies where he makes others help you financially.” To be quite honest, I don’t know if I want to take the time right now to go back and listen to it in order to explain what we were talking about. A lot can happen in one’s journey over the course of seven years, and I may not even necessarily agree with anything I said here! LOL 🙂 Thanks again for listening. –steve 🙂