Is God All-Powerful?
Jan.21, 2009 in
Podcast Episodes
Just from the title of this post, one can probably guess that this will be a controversial discussion! 😉 But in their usual method of not shying away from tough questions, Ray and Steve discuss human definitions of God in light of the question of evil. If God is all-powerful, why doesn’t he stop evil, pain, and suffering? Some different theories are presented, some attempts to put a few pieces together, and some interesting twists on the question. Not to mention some humorous moments when Steve can’t get listener Sid’s name right!
Listen with patience and an open mind as Ray and Steve “think out loud” about a very touchy subject.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 51:12 — 35.2MB) | Embed
January 21st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Hey guys,
I didn’t mean to ask you two to march through a theological mine field! I’m glad you ended up enjoying the discussion. I certainly did!
“I would rather believe in a God who couldn’t stop calamity than one who wouldn’t stop calamity”
Same here. In fact, my deism was built around a God with limited power for many years.
One time, when I was quite young, I was discussing God with my father. He asked me if I believed that God is all powerful. “Yes,” I responded. Then he asks, “Does God have the power to make a boulder so large that He can’t move it?” After some child-like reasoning, I said, “It depends if he wants to or not.”
It seems that you two have come to a similar conclusion, albeit by much more mature means. In your theology, God has _chosen_ to limit his own power to accomplish a certain task. In my childhood example, he limits his power to move any sized object to achieve a God-unmovable boulder. In what you are describing, He limits his interference in our world in order to achieve a more equatable relationship with us. I’m I hearing you correctly?
If so, it’s a theodicy I haven’t heard though it has some similarities to the free will theodicy (http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/the-problem-of-evil-the-free-will-theodicy/). It also suffers from a similar weakness. Using your home-leasing analogy, God had control over the house which he built. Ours has a lot of nasty exposed wires and sharp edges – very dangerous. We call these dangers sources of suffering. A truly virtuous Land Lord would have least a much safer house.
In other words, he could have created a world without childhood leukemia (to use Raborn’s example) or tsunamis. How are those things necessitated by God condescending to have an equatable relationship with us? Your theodicy seems to only address the evils which we inflict upon each other. Having created us, I would think that He would have been able to prevent much of that as well.
I also want to point out a presupposition that you didn’t make explicit in your talk. You presume that we have free will. That is may not be the case. In fact, we are finding out our will isn’t as free as we thought (http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/the-copernican-revolution-of-the-personal/). In fact, I don’t believe we do have free will. My perception of free will is based on an internal, subjective _feeling_, and I mentioned in my last comment how much I distrust that.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Wow, I really appreciated this conversation! Just this week I was trying to wrap my understanding around John 11 where Jesus wept about Lazuras, even though He KNEW that He was planning on raising from the dead. That among other verses……
Also, this reviewing of God’s character as we cast off some of the old mindsets…. really helps me in my prayer life. It’s one thing to throw away those old formulas, but another to go deeper to know Him more.
Lots more I could say!
Thanks
Heather
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 am
I’ll be the Reformed Defender any time you guys want to have that talk. 😉
I did set the box of matches out for this one, but you guys approach it (as usual) with the humility you usually bring to the table.
If our definition of all powerful is that God can do anything anytime then no God isn’t all powerful. He is limited by his character. Otherwise I do think he’s all powerful. He is called Lord Almighty in the NT http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=almighty&version1=31&searchtype=all&bookset=2
I think that God is certainly benevolent and loving. I don’t think he’s OMNI either of those things. Or if he is then in it’s in such a way that we as humans can’t grasp it.
My take on the state of the “house” is that God built it perfectly. We’re the ones that trashed it. The exposed wires and sharp pointy things are our fault. We didn’t read the user manual (not so much the Bible, just a further analogy) and decided that we knew better.
I think the problem of evil gets back to what evil is “necessary”. There is evil in the world as a result of sin. God, while he doesn’t provide remedy for the “evil”, has provided remedy for the sin. That is his love for us.
Westminster Shorter Catechism (a human document and one I don’t agree with every point of) says :
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
Glorify means to bestow honor, praise, admiration. I think that we do that as believers out of our love for him and that he deserves it because of who he is. He created us chiefly for relationship and that’s what glorifying and enjoying is. I glorify and enjoy my wife because of our relationship. I don’t think that glorification is unhealthy and I don’t think it makes God egotistical. Does that make sense?
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Sid – The analogy of the landlord who has the dangerous house feels like a weak one. You feel like If God was loving he would have made the world a better place without tsunamis and lukemia. It feels like you are continually trying to put God in a box – to contain the idea so you debate the points. To me the reality is a much larger one. Tsunamis destroy lives, but bring out the humanity in people and they come together to achieve great things tah otherwise wouldn’t have been thought of. And hom many great scientific achievements have come about due to researching solutions to lukemia that again otherwise wouldn’t have even been considered. It is human nature to be contnent and to not change/grow without a “reason”. While not all humans fit this it is a part of who we are. And as far as the house goes it was created perfect (Presuming that we take genesis as fact – and we are discussing God so….) and the choices and actions of the tennants took away the perfectness and set a the following tennants on a path of slow destruction like scott said. Not all of the dangers our directly our fault, however the lease still holds and the tennants are the ones adding to the degeneration. Sometimes we make some improvements, but it is what it is. I am not edjucated enough to throw out the scientific principle of everything is degenrating, but that is the idea here. I look forward to more discussion from you on this one.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
This is a good episode and I’m not sure what I can say yet, other than to quote the movie “The Matrix” when Cypher (I think) says about Neo that “he’s gonna pop!” I popped about halfway through this podcast.
Sid, the tenant/landlord theory may seem to break down because we think in terms of multiple tenants. In other words, one set of tenants moves in. When they leave, the landlord fixes the problems with the house. Then another tenant moves in and the cycle starts over. That’s our human analogy. But it would be more accurate to say that there has always been one tenant of the home. All the sharp edges and broken places of the home that are dangerous are the result of habitation. Much of the diseases of this world can be tracked down to problems of our habitation of the world.
I’m glad you guys phrased it at the end “God is all powerful, but limits his power”. God is powerful, no doubt. Scripture is full of the account of the power of God. But how do our prayers effect his use of that power? Raborn mentioned that this revolutionized his prayer life when he realized that God could change his mind. But what of those kids who had cancer, who were bathed in prayer for healing and yet died anyway? Either we didn’t pray hard enough to change His mind (which I don’t like), or He chose not to heal them (which leaves us confused and for some folks, abandoned), or his plan was for something greater than what we can see (which leaves us feeling used). Perhaps our theology gets a bit twisted because we believe in the “and they lived happily ever after” conclusion to our life’s events. When did we ever expect that our lives would be filled with only good? Our American constitution guarantees our right to the “pursuit of happiness”. That’s just it though, it’s a pursuit. Jesus told us to expect trouble, but that the peace he offers trumps it.
I’m still working on this one guys. I wish I had the answers. However, it doesn’t keep me from still trusting God even though I don’t understand why He does (or doesn’t do) the things He does.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Hey Newman! Dude this podcast really just rocks the house. I really would love it if this was on iTunes! I want to listen to it on the bus home from school, or even when I am playing my xbox! I would really love your email response!
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Tyler, our left-hand sidebar has the link to our podcast in iTunes. We’re there, man, so go ahead and subscribe!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
Sid, a couple of thoughts in response:
1. Given your pessimism about feelings, how can you be confident of anything? Not everything can be broken down into empirical evidence, and I think it’s rather naive to reduce the human experience to such. I realize that’s pretty much the dictionary definition of “skepticism”, but honestly, I think you reduce humanity to a rather depressingly low level in your reasoning at times.
This is, perhaps, the saddest of the unintended consequences of the theory of evolution. It strips the human existence of any value at all by basically seeing what we have as mere chance that it even happened. We’re just lucky to be here, and we just hope that we survive. Then someone comes along and says, “Hey, there’s more to this! There’s hope! There’s a bigger existence!” And the skeptic says, “You only think that because your feelings are making it up. There’s no hope. There’s nothing outside of this bleak, dying existence. Leave me alone to die in my misery.”
Yes, I’m exaggerating a bit, but I don’t think it’s much of a stretch. Where do you think those thoughts of hope come from, Sid? Wishful thinking? Delusions? Where would a mind capable of even such delusions come from? Mere chance? Mere biological evolution?
2. Several others have already addressed your feeling (ha! couldn’t resist) that the landlord analogy is flawed. First of all, it’s a metaphor so it’s not going to be perfect. That’s the nature of metaphors. So don’t be looking for a 1:1 correlation on every subpoint. Don’t press the metaphor too far. Second, you implied in your comment that God must have built the house with severe flaws. This is not at all what we have asserted in our discussion. Not even close.
As others have pointed out, we, the tenants, have made a mess of this planet and our use of its resources. We have made choices that have placed us at risk. There is a very natural sow/reap correlation that exists.
Let me give you an example with regard to a subject that I have discussed with other Christians – physical healing. Assume for the moment that there is a God and that he offers physical healing. Does that entitle me to eat an entire chocolate cake in one sitting and then expect healing from the severe tummy ache that results?
Or another example: I believe in divine protection over people. But does that give me the right to barrel down the left lane of a highway at 95mph with my eyes closed and expect protection from the oncoming traffic?
No. Yet in many ways, these are the types of things that mankind does, and then they have the audacity to blame God for the results. That’s a major flaw I see in your position on this issue.
Jesus told us (my paraphrase), “You want to know what God is like as a father? Think of what you are like as a father. Think of how you feel about your children and what you would do for them. Now, realize that God is an even better father than that.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
Scott, do you really want to do a discussion about Reformed theology? I’m up for it if you are.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
I am really up for it. And in case you don’t know me well enough to know this, Reformed theology isn’t something that a) I’m dogmatic about or b) believe is perfect.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Wow! Good discussion everyone! I’m at work right now, so I can’t really dive in, but I will try and post some responses later. Great dialog everyone! I am really enjoying it!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Well Steve, I don’t want to speak for Sid – he’s perfectly capable of speaking for himself. I think some of the “sharp edges” in the house that he’s referring to are things that are beyond cause/effect relationships, ie. the tsunamis and hurricanes that devastate and harm many people who were unsuspecting. I’ll go on a limb on say what first pops into my mind Sid. If people were completely innocent then it would seem inappropriate for God to allow/cause such things to happen. However, no one is innocent. All of humanity (according to the Bible) is guilty – we’re all sinners (Romans 3:23) and are deserving of God’s judgment, regardless of whether or not we believe. So when bad things do happen, what right do we really have to complain? So the question changes from “why do bad things happen to good people?” to a more appropriate “why do good things happen to any of us?” The reason is because God is with us and He’s the giver of all good and perfect things.
BTW Sid, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, because frankly, I’m not sure I’m convinced yet on every point. But this is what I think, for the now.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Hello All!
Wow, I’ve got a lot to respond to! Thanks for all the interesting points and points of view that challenge my thoughts. I’ll respond to the commenters in order.
Scott: “My take on the state of the ‘house’ is that God built it perfectly. We’re the ones that trashed it.” We had neither the ability nor the desire to create small pox or tsunamis. Whence come these evils?
Big C: I can’t remember if I responded to you via email about this or not. What you express in your comment is the Personal Growth Theodicy, which I’ve written and discussed before: http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/the-problem-of-evil-the-spiritualpersonal-growth-theodicy/
Rodney: Thanks for arguing part of my point with your last comment. You give the exact example I would have. I’m having trouble understanding a statement from your first comment, though. “Much of the diseases of this world can be tracked down to problems of our habitation of the world.” You’re suggesting that our mere presence in this world creates diseases? Please explain and support this statement.
Steve: Thanks for numbering the comment. That makes referencing your statements quite easy.
1. I think we can have a good discussion about who’s world view diminishes humans more, but that’s a bit far afield from the topic of this episode. I will say that you misrepresent the skeptic’s view of humanity. I don’t want other readers to think that that is the way I and other skeptics see things.
My short answer to your question is that I am absolutely certain of nothing. Thought there are things I accept as true without certainty and those things are most often based in inductive reasoning. There are a small amount of things that I take as true based on faith, but those are simple, universal, and few in number. These are things like “things exist”, “deductive logic is valid” and “inductive logic can be conditionally trusted”.
2. Thanks for the reminder on the limitations of metaphor. I was tempted to push the analogy even further in response to Scott but resisted. Still, I don’t think I’ve pushed it too far. There are things in the world that cause unnecessary suffering and evil. As Rodney points out, some of those things (e.g. natural disasters, childhood leukemia) are not results of our own actions.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Sid, I appreciate your continued dialog. I must admit that I’m not really sure how far to take these discussions with you. In many ways, neither Ray nor I set out to make this podcast an apologetics one. So I’m torn, wondering if this is even the forum in which to debate these things.
Having said that, allow me to interact with a couple of the statements you have made here.
First of all, I did not intend to misrepresent the skeptic’s position. I was merely giving you my sense of what that position seems to convey. It’s what I get out of your comments, and I was simply presenting my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth, but that is how I perceive the skeptic’s discontent with my position of faith.
Second, allow me to address this issue of whether or not man has caused things. Allow me to address the two areas of concern raised here: disease and “natural disasters”.
A. Disease – you mentioned leukemia as an example of something that we have neither the ability nor the desire to cause. There is one glaring hole in your argument, though – namely, we don’t know what causes leukemia.
The Mayo Clinic’s website entry on leukemia states:
Since we don’t know the exact causes, we cannot, then, definitively say that human behavior has not caused the existence of leukemia. The reality is that there are correlations between things that we put in our bodies (via food, pharmaceutical drugs, etc.) or in our environment (via pollution, food packaging, etc.) and some diseases, especially many cancers. And the Mayo Clinic quote above even acknowledges that environmental factors may play into the onset of leukemia in patients. So, it is not possible to rule out the notion that human choices and behavior are responsible for the existence of this disease, which is now possibly passed on genetically. The notion that we can introduce, even unintentionally, diseases into the human experience need not speak to desire. But we cannot rule out the control that we may have had at some point in our past that led to diseases such as this being introduced. I would actually expect my logic here to be consistent with the theory of evolution in that something introduced into the genetic stream becomes an unexplainable part of future generations.
To further belabor the point, the FDA regularly approves things for consumption that have not been exhaustively tested or proven to be safe. And there is evidence to suggest that even when studies show some levels of danger, those results are glossed over in favor of getting the product on the shelves and into the bodies of the consuming public. How many diseases are there for which no cause is known? Shall we wash our hands (no pun intended) of all of them with regard to our responsibility? Or should we anticipate that it is possible that later research will find that we did, in fact, cause these diseases to come into existence by our own irresponsibility and corporate greed?
B. With regard to the weather, allow me to ask a follow-up question. Do you believe that man has any influence over climate change? Is there a sense in which man has environmentally affected the climate of this earth? I have heard it stated that the hurricanes that have battered the Gulf Coast and Atlantic coast in recent years have been worsened by climate change (i.e., global warming). If that is true, than we cannot simultaneously blame God for the existence of hurricanes, or even lament his allowance of them, if we are doing something to make them worse. Perhaps New Orleans could have survived a Cat 3 Katrina, but because it was ostensibly made worse by human effect on the climate, destruction was brought about.
Furthermore — and I say this very carefully because I do not wish to appear insensitive to the losses and damage suffered in events like Katrina — if people choose to build and live in a place that they know is susceptible to weather events such as hurricanes, is it then fair to cry out in opposition against God when such events cause severe damage and loss of life? Cross-reference my point in an earlier comment regarding eating chocolate cake and getting an upset stomach.
I don’t know if any of these points adequately address your rebuttals, but I think it’s important to be consistent in how we approach these things. We cannot blame God for something of which we don’t know the cause.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Hello Steve,
I’m really sorry. I don’t want to change the nature of your podcast. It’s not about apologetics but my objections may be pushing it that way. In the future, I’ll post objections on my blog and we can discuss and/or debate as long as you feel comfortable. So instead of pushing the debate portion of our dialog further, I’ll just correct one misunderstanding of genetics in you response.
“So, it is not possible to rule out the notion that human choices and behavior are responsible for the existence of this disease, which is now possibly passed on genetically.”
Behaviors and choices can not change genes. Such Lemarckian thinking was abandoned years ago – ever since Mendel’s genetic theory was reconciled with Darwin’s natural selection.
If you do wish to discus the problem of evil, feel free to renew the debate on any of those posts I linked above.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Sid, I wasn’t trying to shut down the dialog here completely. That was mostly just an explanation as to why I wasn’t sure how far to press the points and discuss them here with you. But I didn’t mean to imply that we couldn’t discuss them here at all. How about you continue to feel free to post here, and I’ll let you know if it gets to a point where we just have to agree to disagree. 🙂 I really DO appreciate your interaction.
My word choice about genetics was rather poor, and I understand why you thought I was referring to Lemarckian-type thinking. So I’d like to clarify a bit.
First of all, I’m sure you are aware that not all heredity is Mendelian in nature. For example, the introduction of a virus into a host body can result in a hereditary passing-on of the mutation caused by the virus. Maybe that’s not technically “genetics”, so I may still need correcting. But I wasn’t specifically trying to spell out Lemarckian genetic concepts.
The point I was trying to make is that a disease such as leukemia can possibly be caused by man-made events (i.e., chemical exposure). The fact that we don’t understand the causes of many diseases means that we cannot rule out the possibility that someone in the past contracted the disease via man-made events and that the results of that exposure was passed on through heredity.
I was basing this on the vague understanding presented in the Mayo Clinic’s website addressing the possible (but not definitively known) causes for leukemia, including man-made events and genetics.
When I said “behavior” and “choice”, I did not mean it in a Lemarckian sense, but rather in the “choice” to expose oneself to things whose effect is not known. Hence my comments about the FDA, etc.
Would you like to respond to those parts of my comment?
January 28th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Thanks Steve. I really appreciate the interaction as well. In addition to providing stimulating conversations, people like you, Raborn, and Scott are helping me overcome my post-religious bitterness. There is much that is good in Christianity, even if I disagree with portions of it.
Okay, I’ll carry the conversation until we reach an impasse. I have no doubt we can amicably agree to disagree if it comes to that.
It seems that you are exploiting a weakness of my particular examples whilst avoiding the point. There exists evils in this world which are not the result of human activity. The particular examples matter not in comparison.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I didn’t mean to appear to be exploiting weaknesses in your examples. Here is the general point that I’m making:
I believe that it is possible that all evils that exist owe their very existence to the human race. Certainly that cannot be proven exhaustively, but — and perhaps this will be the impasse! — I do not believe that it is possible to prove exhaustively, either, that there are evils that are not the result of the existence of the human race.
What I’m basically proposing is a theory that would approach the possibility of answering your original assertion — basically that evil is outside our control and therefore the fault of God for allowing it to remain.
Is the theory that unacceptable? I’m not saying it’s correct. Just thinking out loud about possible explanations.
It seems to me that we only have a limited number of choices to explain evil in the world:
1. It’s all the fault of man who, given a perfect world, ruined it.
2. It’s all the fault of a God who either created the world as flawed or allowed it to become so and didn’t stop it.
3. It’s all the fault of a God who, regardless of the source of the evil we see, is powerless to do anything about it.
4. There is no God, we don’t know the cause of evil, but it all pretty much happens by chance anyway and there’s nothing any of us can do about it except try to survive.
It appears that you and I are approaching this from opposite angles. You see evil, and therefore assume that it is a negative reflection on any God that may exist. I see evil and see it as a negative reflection on the choices that the human race has made. (And I accused you of having the negative view of man! hehe)
In conjunction with that, however, I see a God (as revealed in Jesus) who cares immensely about the choices we have made that have brought evil and destruction to our world, and who offers us a way to overcome that evil and be spared the natural consequences of it. On the other hand, you seem to see a God who apparently doesn’t give a flip (the “deistic” part of “deist-agnostic”, perhaps?), or else is too weak to do anything about it, or else possibly doesn’t even exist (the “agnostic” part of “deist-agnostic”).
It’s not that I was exploiting weaknesses in your examples. It’s that the examples you gave in support of your point are potentially flawed. Instead, you’ve just reasserted the point without examples! 🙂
Oh, well — at least you get bonus points for using the word “whilst” in your comment 😉 hehe
What do you think? Is this the impasse? I’ll let you have the final word here if you think it is.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Hey Sid – I’ve been working out of town this week and haven’t had much time for the internet.
You asked me to elaborate on my statement that “much of the diseases of this world can be attributed to our habitation of the world.” Firstly, you have to know that sometimes I speak without completely thinking it through – speaking off the top of my mind. When I wrote that sentence I was specifically thinking about cancers that can be linked to human initiated (caused) environmental factors. Steve mentioned this as well. Perhaps my statement would have been more appropriately worded that some of the diseases can be attributed to our habitation of the world. I’m not a biologist or even a scientist, although (believe it or not) I try to think as scientifically as possible. I don’t know that diseases CAN’T be attributable to human activity. I don’t know – I wish I did.
However, I will go kind of Star Wars Jedi-ish on you and say that what I said was true, but from a certain point of view. Most evangelical christian teaching contends that disease and death did not occur before the fall of man in the garden of Eden. Therefore, ALL disease could be attributable to man’s habitation in the world (because of his sin). I know this theory holds very little water with you and I wouldn’t expect it to if you didn’t base your view of the history of the world on the Biblical account.
I’ve found over the last several years, that when I get really honest, I have many skeptical views of the Biblical account. I’m very much like the “doubting” Thomas. I’ve kept many of those questions buried for years for fear that perhaps what I’ve believed my entire life is a lie. But I’m coming to realize that I can’t ignore the white elephant in the room any longer and am slowly beginning to address some of these doubts of mine. Bear with me Sid, and everybody else here.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Scott: “My take on the state of the ‘house’ is that God built it perfectly. We’re the ones that trashed it.” We had neither the ability nor the desire to create small pox or tsunamis. Whence come these evils?
Man’s sin caused the fall of nature whether directly or indirectly. Some degree of suffering is “necessary” and beneficial. We will of course not likely agree as to what or how much of it falls into that category. We may also not agree on what necessary in this instance means.
Here’s how I view it. The tsunamis and non-human caused diseases are necessary in the sense that they are unavoidable. Can god stop tsunamis? Can god prevent leukemia from happening? Sure. Jesus stopped the occasional storm and healed a number of individuals. He is powerful enough, so it’s not a question in my mind of God not being able. If god isn’t “all powerful” he is at least sufficiently powerful to handle most causes of suffering I am aware of.
I suppose it could come down to him not being powerful enough to completely eradicate them. I don’t think that’s the case either though. God has a plan to do just that. The problem arises when we think we know best what his timetable and methods of eliminating this suffering should be. We don’t want to suffer, naturally, so we beg for it to stop. We want to dictate to god how to handle the whole situation instead of accepting how he wants to handle it. We put God in a box by saying “If you love us then you’ll do it this way. If you don’t do it this way then you don’t love us.”
I think it’s a bit like my child asking me not to discipline her because they don’t like the discipline. That even extends to things that are seemingly outside my control like my child falling off a bike. I could prevent that by rigging things in such a way that they could never get on a bike. That’s within my control. I give them the freedom to ride a bike in spite of the fact that I know that they will get injured eventually. That doesn’t mean I love them less. When they do get hurt I will be there to love them.
God lets us live our lives knowing that bad things will happen that he could prevent and when they do he will be there for us. I don’t think that makes us bad parents.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Mainly because I don’t want to put up another long post, I will bite my tongue (for the most part) and limit this post to this one question. You posed the question about what people say as their first impression of God. My first thought is that that is an unfair question. For example, when I think of God (One worthy and deserving of worship), the first thing that comes to mind is His immensity in majesty, power and holiness. I am more appreciative of the comparison of God with a Consuming Fire. It puts Him in a “place” that I can’t even hope to come close to myself. Notice that I’m not talking about God exalting Himself other than saying Who and What He is. So in recognizing THAT, the sacrificial love wherewith He loved us takes on a power and awesomeness that cannot be expressed properly in human words. So what comes FIRST (and that’s where my question comes in) doesn’t necessarily imply what is paramount.
But my question in light of “first impressions” is, then, why did God not reveal Himself as He did in Jesus Christ – to the children of Israel in the wilderness? In other words, why would He FIRST reveal the Law and THEN reveal Truth and Grace in Jesus Christ?
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Gotta add something on Jesus weeping and knowing. He was subject to human frailty and to limited knowledge (thus, His prayer “Father, if it be possible, remove this cup from Me.”). So Jesus is not a great example for that (as I see it). And as far as God changing His mind, He certainly does. But in the case of Nineveh (it is interesting), they ended up being wiped out years later – after they took Judah captive.
God’s love and mercy is certainly shown throughout the OT. If it is not seen, it is because the one who cannot see it is justifying man. We are told the wages of sin is death and yet how many sins did God actually forgive long before Jesus Christ came along? Unfortunately, we don’t get to make the rules – that’s God’s province.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Limited power? Maybe. But not in earth. The limitation comes not in earth but in man. We are not automatons. But God clearly does not limit His power in the earth.
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
Isaiah 46:9-11
The lease may be on us internally, but even at that God is still the landlord.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
WT wrote: But my question in light of “first impressions” is, then, why did God not reveal Himself as He did in Jesus Christ – to the children of Israel in the wilderness? In other words, why would He FIRST reveal the Law and THEN reveal Truth and Grace in Jesus Christ?
I don’t know that I can answer the question of “why” with any certainty. However, I would still contend that if we place any revelation in the OT above that of what is revealed in Jesus, we have the cart before the horse.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
So Jesus is not a great example for that (as I see it).
The major problem I have with this (besides the pick-and-choose applications of the deity of Jesus, if that is really to be a central part of christian orthodoxy) is that it contradicts what Jesus himself said: “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”
Obviously, the Father’s heart broke for Jerusalem, as I’m sure it does for many, many people today, including many of the leaders and participants of the institutional church.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Steve said:
I don’t know that I can answer the question of “why” with any certainty. However, I would still contend that if we place any revelation in the OT above that of what is revealed in Jesus, we have the cart before the horse.
—-
WT says: I agree. And I would say that if we place any revelation of the NT above that of the OT, we are pitting the horse against the cart. Neither nullify or contradict the other but rather harmonize. One was necessary to precede the other. For to reverse them would be to change the message. And to say that anything in Jesus contradicts what is in the OT is also wrong. The revelation of the law was necessary first before Truth and Grace could be revealed. So for one to really understand and appreciate the Grace and Truth revealed and offered in Jesus Christ, one must first be condemned under the law. Only sinners need a Savior.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Steve said:
So Jesus is not a great example for that (as I see it). {Quote of WT}
The major problem I have with this (besides the pick-and-choose applications of the deity of Jesus, if that is really to be a central part of christian orthodoxy) is that it contradicts what Jesus himself said: “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”
Obviously, the Father’s heart broke for Jerusalem, as I’m sure it does for many, many people today, including the leaders and participants of the institutional church.
—————-
My point is that Jesus’ incarnation necessarily imposed some restrictions on Him that we believe He did not have with the Father in Heaven. We are told that He was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. Paul tells the Philippians that He did not see equality with God something to be grasped. That He had it with the Father and asked to have that glory restored (John 17) is more indication that He was not operating in full capacity as God.
Your podcast (I don’t recall if it was this one) spoke of Jesus as the Son of Man – which He styled Himself more often that as the Son of God (though He was both). So the emphasis on His humanity seems also to show that He voluntarily submitted to limitations. Thus, He said that He could do nothing nor say nothing except the Father show Him or tell Him (e.g. John 5:19 and John 5:30).
I don’t question His status as God. But I do see ample evidence that in coming to earth in the form of a man, He limited Himself so that He operated as any one who would be called a son of God would operate – led only by His Spirit.
God even hid some things from the Son…such as the time of Christ’s return. So I don’t think “seeing the Father” implies knowing what the Father knows.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
So, Jesus could limit his power, but the Father doesn’t? I think the more consistent application would be that, in the same way that Jesus limited his ability (if you believe that he was 100% God and 100% man simultaneously), the Father chooses to limit his.
My point in the podcast was that Jesus wept over Jerusalem because he wanted them to respond to his plea, and they didn’t; in that, we see the heart of the Father. But you’ve removed that connection to the Father by saying it had to do with Jesus’ human limitations. So, in what sense did Jesus show us the Father?
Your explanation, while the classic response, leaves me feeling like we are imposing our post-NT theology (i.e., council of Nicaea, etc.) onto scripture. If Jesus really was “fully man, fully God”, then he wasn’t limited. And if he was limited, then the Father may impose those same limitations on himself. Otherwise, “if you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father” means very little, in my opinion. He might as well have said, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen what the Father would be like if he were human and had limitations.” Kind of empties the incarnation of any significance if we are to retain some notion of Jesus being deity.
Can God cease to be God?
February 5th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Let me clarify a few terms regarding OT, NT, contradictions, carts, and horses:
I believe that any apparent contradictions are more likely a result of our failure to comprehend what the Father was trying to reveal. And that applies to both the one delivering the message and the one receiving the message. However, I find that most Christian theology pays mere lip service to the revelation of Jesus and values, say, the opinions of Job over the teachings of Jesus.
So when I talk about Jesus contradicting the Old Testament, I am referring to things like Job’s statement that “The Lord gives and takes away” when Jesus very clearly said that it is the thief who steals, kills, and destroys, not the Father.
Jesus also gave apparent contradictions to man’s understanding of the Law by saying, “You’ve heard it said,, but I say unto you….” So when we go around using the Ten Commandments as some sort of standard, or we try to throw that in people’s faces (i.e., “The Way of the Master” method of evangelism, attempting to force the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, etc.), we miss the point that Jesus was trying to make and end up merely paying lip service to what he taught us. “Oh, of course love is really the point, but that’s way too subjective. We need to start by telling people how awful they are and make sure they know they are sinners destined for hell.” Uhhhh, sure. That’s exactly how Jesus, Paul, etc. taught. After all, reads Romans 1-3, right? Except that we forget that Romans was written to believers. Paul was helping believers understand what they had already come out of. That wasn’t his message to unbelievers (see his speech on Mars Hill). His message was, “There is a Creator God that you have been separated from, and He has chosen a man (i.e., Jesus) through whom he has provided reconciliation!”
That is, indeed, good news!
February 5th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Regarding Jesus’ incarnation, I honestly don’t understand the term “fully man and fully God”. It may be right, it may not. Jesus’ life was one of revelation. Philip (I think it was him) was the one who said “Show us the Father and it will suffice” to which Jesus answered “Have I been with you so long…?If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father”. If we realize that flesh and blood does not profit a man, but that it was more important what Jesus SAID (“The words I speak unto you, THEY are spirit and THEY are life…”) and DID (“I can do nothing except it is given me of the Father”). It was in those things – expressing as He did that the Father showed and spoke all things before Jesus did – that the Father was REVEALED. It wasn’t a matter of power (even Jesus said that he who believes would do GREATER things than He) or form or even knowledge (all of which can be shown to be limited) but in revelation. So when John says that the Law (a revelation of God) came by Moses but Grace and Truth (fuller revelation of God) came by Jesus Christ, His answer to Philip is, to me, just a confirmation of what John said by way of introduction to his gospel account.
Yes, His weeping over Jerusalem was an expression of His sorrow over its destruction and rejection of Him. But that does not imply that the Father didn’t know their response ahead of time. He was the one that hardened their hearts – if you believe Isaiah. So I see Jesus’ weeping as a Divine expression of God’s willingness that none should perish but at the same time a human expression of (self?) helplessness in the sense that His own will (which we know was not perfectly the same as the Father’s – just submitted to it) failed to accomplish what He “wanted” or “willed”.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
As far as the “contradictions” go, the example you give about the thief is simply an example of forgetting who is in view. The thief steals. What is it that God DOESN’T own that He takes? God certainly DOES kill (and make alive). He created the destroyer to destroy. He seals men for judgment and for protection. So while the agent that may carry those things out is not necessarily God Himself (directly), He still bears the responsibility of killing. But life is His to give. Possessions are His to give or take away. God is not out to destroy, but there are things that must be destroyed.
Jesus’ “…but I say unto you…”‘s are merely (like the revelation of Grace and Truth) expansions on the Law that are inherent in it. Can a man be guilty of theft without covetousness? Sure, but the law provides for inadvertent sins and distinguishes them from intentional sins. Can a man bow down to an outward god and not bow inwardly? No, but at the same time, the commandment is (on the surface) aimed at external idols. So when Jesus spoke what He did, He wasn’t saying anything new, but just showing men that to God, the intent of the heart is simply the seed for the expression of the action that bears that motive out. And when Jesus says a good tree cannot bear bad fruit (and vice versa), it shows God seeing what the end of a lustful, hateful, or vengeful thought is. Thus, He sees that a murderous heart WILL bring forth murder. It CAN’T bring forth its antithesis.
You’ll notice, too, that Jesus’ harshest words were for those that justified themselves and trusted in themselves. Not the lowly ones who sought Him because they recognized their need. To the self-righteous (which includes the heart even if not the obvious words and actions), they will not go to Him even though He is the only Way. They will not because they see no need to. That’s why Peter preached the way he did and called for repentance. That’s why Stephen boldly preached the way he did. Both men basically (and I think Peter did, literally) called the hearers murderers of God! To a Jew, there could be no worse crime. That was a test – maybe not intentionally by Peter, but rather the Holy Spirit – to see what the hearts were like. If they were honest and not self-seeking, they would respond to the truth in humility. If not (like the Pharisees in Stephen’s case) they would lash out. Reconciliation isn’t good news if you don’t think you need it. And reconciliation implies being at enmity. Thus, before one knows God, they are at enmity with Him. That’s not the implication reconciliation brings to most ears today. Mostly, it means something to the effect of “Hug and make nice”.
That said, I’m not defending Way of the Master – just some of the basic foundations that it rests upon.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
When the woman in adultery was brought to Jesus, he did not allow the Law to be carried out. You can tell how that sat with the listeners. After all, they brought her to Jesus for the very purpose of seeing if he would carry out the Law.
By the way, I want to go on record as saying that I adamantly oppose your statements that God kills and created the destroyer to destroy. I didn’t spell out Jesus’ contrast to the statement about the thief, but he did not say, “The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but I come to take from you what is rightfully mine, and to kill those whom I want to kill.”
February 5th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Steve said:
When the woman in adultery was brought to Jesus, he did not allow the Law to be carried out. You can tell how that sat with the listeners. After all, they brought her to Jesus for the very purpose of seeing if he would carry out the Law.
—————————-
I guess I don’t see the direct connection. Did God punish Israel the first time they strayed? Absolutely not! The number of times they legally should have been wiped out because of their idolatry, the number of times they had kings do wickedly in the sight of God – there should have been no way that God should have let them live for more than a few years. But He not only kept on calling them back, He forgave them. That said, there were times when God did judge and Israel felt a stinging rebuke as a people, but by no means was it every time they were guilty of something. Persistent rebellion was usually punished, but not a repentant heart. So while the woman was caught in adultery, Jesus knew her heart – and the hearts of the Pharisees (the very ones trying to justify themselves and catch Jesus). While I don’t have a clue what He wrote on the ground, I do know that none of those ready to stone the woman were willing to stay around after Jesus’ wordless response.
Steve said:
By the way, I want to go on record as saying that I adamantly oppose your statements that God kills and created the destroyer to destroy. I didn’t spell out Jesus’ contrast to the statement about the thief, but he did not say, “The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but I come to take from you what is rightfully mine, and to kill those whom I want to kill.”
—————————————
They are not my own statements but rather God’s (if you accept the prophets as delivering God’s words). My intention was merely to show that the Old Testament is not invalid – or less valid than the New Testament. Just incomplete. But by the same token, the New is also incomplete without the Old Testament. Jesus certainly fulfilled many things that have passed away – things which were foreshadows of Him. But God’s character never passes away or changes. We are only able to grasp some of it at a time. I see the scriptures as revealing God progressively with the picture becoming fuller and no aspect of His Nature being invalidated or superseded. And there are even times in the gospels where His anger with rebellion shows through (one example being Luke 19:26).
Jesus did not come to steal and destroy, but that doesn’t change the fact that God declares He does all those things (whether directly or indirectly). The Lord is a Mighty Man of War (isn’t He called the Lord of Hosts?) – but we also know there is a time for everything under heaven.
Your original statement (comment 29) made it sound a little like you were pitting Old and New against one another (or possibly the OT God and the NT Jesus) and implying that it should be opposite to that. My response is that I don’t think either is right.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:13 am
The difference between our two positions is this: You appear to interpret Jesus’s statements in light of the Old Testament revelation. I interpret the Old Testament statements in light of what Jesus revealed.
Can I resolve all the apparent differences? No, not at all. But when there do appear to be differences, I prefer to assume that either I or the Old Testament writers don’t (didn’t) fully understand, but that the revelation of Jesus is the more understandable one. The book of Hebrews seems to contradict your implication that the OT and Jesus are on the same level.
By the way, the connection in the story of the woman caught in adultery is not that sin sometimes gets forgiven. It’s that the Law was extremely specific as to what the punishment was for adultery, and Jesus did not follow that.
If you want to respond, I’m going to let you have the final word in this thread. I’ve made the points that I wanted to make and probably will not have any more to say in response.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Steve,
You are probably right – that this is not going to go far given our views. I just want to point out that Hebrews doesn’t address the entire OT, but rather the covenant that required the blood of bulls and goats. While the OT prophets may not have really understood much of what they were saying, we don’t need to be in the dark (as I’m sure you agree) with respect to the dark sayings they uttered. I simply can’t take categorical statements like God declaring He kills and makes alive and temper them with more general statements that involve more specificity to make clear (such as “God is love”).
That may well be our chasm…
February 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am
WOW…you guys blew my mind with the Lease analogy. Awesome!