I had no idea I had more than three people that read this, so I will have to try to think my posts out a little better. I think I have been lazy some in connecting dots in my head without connecting them in writing, so, sorry everyone. I will do better on that. I think my last post was a little sloppy in some ways, so I need to write more about that. Lyle, thanks for the thoughts, I will try to address those here too.
I mainly started the topic of economics because I am sick of hearing that Obama is a socialist. Now, there are several reasons this bothers me, the major one being that it is a fear tactic. Of course, he does have some "socialist tendencies." But that does not a socialist make. He has some plans and some things he would like to do which may be "socialistic." However, I think that is forcing a false dichotomy. Things are not either "socialist" or "capitalist." We do not live in a truly capitalistic society. Otherwise Walmart could do whatever they wanted and Bill Gates would not have had several huge anti-trust lawsuits. So, yes, the left is closer to socialism than the right, but that is like saying Colorado is closer to Spain than Utah. Neither is really all that close. Obama was not advocating that the American government solve everyone's problems, just as McCain was not advocating that the government let everyone do whatever they want with their money. I am obviously on the left side of things economically, but no one was madder than me when the bank-bailout happened. That happened under a Repub president. I don't see us turning into Soviet Russia because Obama was elected.
Further on that same topic, I did not grow up when the USSR was a large threat, at least when I was cognizant of it. Socialism was not an evil in my world growing up, nor was it an evil for most people under 30. We just don't remember it all. Our government did a great job of painting socialism as evil and capitalism as good during that time. Good or bad, that is the world many grew up it. So they of course continue to see socialism as an enemy and capitalism as a friend. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it becomes obvious when you look votes based on age. Another thing to consider, it is very easy to advocate for capitalism when compared with the rest of the world, you are very rich. Americans have every reason to think capitalism is great, look what its done for us. I wonder if we will be so cavalier about capitalism if it continues to hurt us as it has lately?
I understand the concern about Obama's charity, or lack thereof, but that appears to me to be a gross ad hominem argument. I have not looked at his totals of charity, nor do I need to. If a person who was clearly promiscuous told me that it is better to be in a married, monogamous relationship, would that take away the validity of their statement? Or if an abusive parent told me it is better to love and nurture your children, would that take away from their statement? I think not. I am certainly disappointed, if those numbers are accurate, but that does not change the validity of their opinions. I think we all think things are right that we do not necessarily practice. Furthermore, does that disqualify Paul or Jesus from speaking on marriage, because neither was married? I think not. Barak Obama is clearly neither, but the principle holds.
Now, I made the statement, or something close that "if we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all. let someone else do it." My point in that statement was not that socialism was good, but that was an obvious downfall of socialism. Just as the obvious downfall of capitalism is that the rich can do whatever they want. In a perfect society, everyone would work hard because that is a good thing to do. God wants us to be useful. However, Lyle I do question your reference about work in the garden. I just looked over Gen 1 and 2 and did not find a reference to work before the fall. I may be missing it, but I didn't see it.
There is in fact quite a bit in scripture that advocates socialism. Outside of the obvious New Testament church which was a de facto communist society, the Old Testament was the law of the land. It made it clear that part of the job of those with money was to help those without money. Again, the OT prophets compared not helping the poor to murder. There was no distinction between church and state at the time. When Israel was first a country, there was no king, it was simply a theocracy. God was the boss and people did what he wanted, or so the plan went. People were required to give a certain portion to both the church and to the poor. But I guess the constitution of the United States is more inspired than the OT? Na. We would never think that. Now, I do think there are certain levels of morality that must be legislated. We would not put up with it if our government said murder or stealing was OK. Further, when Christ said we would always have the poor, he was not resigned to that fact. In fact, most of the scholars I have read on it believe he is referencing the fact that the Jews were not obeying the command in Deuteronomy to help the poor.
I would also like to speak to the idea that God wants some to be poor and some to be rich. That would seem to me like favoritism, and James seems pretty clear that God does not practice favoritism. In addition, if we follow the logic that says that some are poor because they are irresponsible or do not work hard we would seem imply that God desires them to sin. Does God want anyone to sin?!! Now, the Bible certainly teaches self-responsibility, so much so that when Peter asked Jesus "What about John?" Jesus told him to worry about himself and follow him! If we are followers of Jesus, it is not our job to ask if people deserve handouts or not. It is our job to give handouts.
I feel this post getting long in the tooth, so I think I need to try to wrap it up. I do not think Socialism is inherently Christian. But I would say it is more Christian than capitalism. There is no such thing as a perfect government, and no political system is Christian per se. I just see that we are called to help the poor, and capitalism does not do that overtly. I realize that this is not incredibly well-thought out, but I am not getting graded on this. Its just a blog. So, I appreciate the dialog, and please continue it. I hope this can be a learning opportunity for me as well.
The last thing I want to respond to is this quote. "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." I think this particular quote has an inherent bias built into it. Of course religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals! The only reason any of us should have to help others is religion! If someone is secular, they have no reason to be charitable. Again, the best way to help the poor is debatable. Some say we need to help business and then business will help the poor, some say we need to give to them. Biblically, we don't see any "help businesses" type of thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help, but the only Biblical input we have is that it is our job to help the poor. For me, that includes voting for those that will increase government spending for the poor.
11.10.2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Chris,
As always, I enjoy reading your blog. Nothing was more disheartening to me, than to see about 500 ignorant facebook statuses on Nov 5, crying about the impending socialism heading towards the US. So its nice to hear somebody from home speak a bit of what I think is truth. I find it so interesting that people think they know what socialism is, and it's hilarious to me that people think Obama is a socialist. As a current resident in a socialist country, the U.S. is nowhere close to that, and the only way it would become that is if the American people voted towards it, time and time and time again...it doesn't happen overnight, and it definitely doesn't happen in four years...and if that happens eventually, then that happens, we live in a democracy (it's not going to, though).
I, like you, Chris, see that in its truest form, without the impending factors of human nature screwing up theory by practice, socialism is much more Biblical. We are certainly called to an economy of "enough", not too much, not too little. Jesus addresses giving to and helping the poor more than almost any other topic. I, for one, am a Christian, so while I struggle with wanting more money, I can in no way justify not giving. If the government wants 95% or even 100% of my income, as a Christian, I should willingly and even joyfully give it away. is that because it goes to a better cause than my own? Not necessarily. In the instance of Obama's platform, I will gladly give up money to support the poor, help out with welfare and healthcare. But in the instance of the government that my taxes currently go to, the Hungarian government, 30% or so of my earned income goes to a corrupt government that puts money in their pocket and does whatever it wants. Sure, it pays for healthcare and education, as well as supports families with children (seriously, mothers are given money to stay at home after they have children), but the majority of it is put into pockets of a corrupt government, leftover from the communist days, masquerading under the party term "socialist". As a Christian, what do I care? Let them take whatever they want, it's just money. If in fact, it is a heart issue, that God is concerned with, I have to say, that money is one of the things that tends to bring my heart farther away from God... so, by all means, take as much as you want, I serve God, not money. If they take it all, God will provide.
Now, here's my question... is it right to coerce those who do not follow Jesus into a system that I believe in because of Jesus? I tend to follow a utilitarian ethic in my politics, and it seems that the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people is to "redistribute" income so that everyone has enough... but, how do I tell a non-Christian CEO of a Fortune 500 company that he should redistribute his income to the poor? Of course, because I believe Jesus set up the world to work this way, I can argue that he may not know that it's best for him, but that he'll be blessed by it, but at the same time, I refuse to oppose gay marriage because I don't see it as my place to tell gay people what to do with their lives, and I think it isn't America's place to mandate what is and isn't marriage. So how can I vote for, and force Jesus' principles on economics through politics and not on morals? (although, sidenote, there is a bit of a moral issue in gay marriage concerning equality of rights). I guess my current issue that I'm struggling with, is that I will always, I think, advocate welfare, healthcare and a redistribution of wealth, because of my faith in Jesus and how He commands me to live. But is it right for me to vote that way, when probably 70% of the voters affected by this choice are not believers...I don't believe that giving should be coerced, so I guess I'm just trying to figure out what exactly is the Christian's role in all these political situations...
Oh, and when I say "redistribution of wealth" I don't necessarily mean, taking everyone's money and giving everyone the same... I mean, simply, using the taxes of everyone to support everyone, which will in turn, take more from the upper class...
Yeah, good points. I agree. It is hard to know how to vote because it is hard to know how much we should force those who don't agree with us to follow our beliefs. That is definitely what I wrestle with on this. I should be fine letting all my money go, but that doesn't necessarily apply to someone who is rich and atheist.
Luckily, I won't have to worry about that, because most Christians in the United States are also fervent capitalists. If it comes about that somehow we have a majority that agree with us about this, then I think we would have to evaluate how we would vote. To be really honest though, we need a sort of hybrid system anyway, because neither system unfettered really works.
Thanks, I have enjoyed writing these lately. You ever get the package Robin sent you?
You certainly are young if you are considering that the Soviet Union was a socialistic country. It was a communist country. We are all aware that the bank bailout happened under a Republican president, but it also went through a Democratic congress. I am not going to argue with you concerning which form of government is better. You see it as socialism and I see it as capitalism. You have already stated that you see socialism as more Christian because it promotes equal distribution even though it also leads to laziness. I see capitalism as the way to go because it leads to ingenuity and hard work, but it certainly can lead to greed. As I said, you are young and you will see the difference as you mature. As you work to provide for your wife and family and the government takes more and more from you for other people and gives to causes that you do not agree with . . . it will not sit well with you. You will certainly not like it when there are others that could work – but simply enjoy living off your wages. You did not answer any of the questions concerning Does sinfulness still reign in each – absolutely.
Has capitalism really hurt us – OR are all the economic systems hurting right now. Capitalism would have NOT loaned money to people who could not afford to pay it back – remember it is selfish. It tends to put profit above equality. The government forced the banks to lend to people who did not have the means and therefore we have had the huge mortgages crises. Sounds like socialism.
First of all, the numbers concerning Barack’s giving are accurate. Those are the numbers from HIS tax returns. Why didn’t you look at them before the election? I did for both of the candidates. What is amazing here is that you have actually provided the perfect ad hominem argument. My statement about Barack Obama and his charitable giving was that I would be more apt to follow a man who actually lives what he says, you know, the ole “Practice what you preach.” The issue was not if giving to the poor was right or not – that is not up for debate. The issue at that point in my comment was the character of the president-elect.
You bring up the Apostle Paul and Jesus and their ability to speak concerning marriage. Let’s do the easy one first . . . Jesus was/is God therefore I believe that He can speak with authority on any issue He chooses to speak. Concerning the apostle Paul – you are not asking the correct question. If you are going to compare apples to apples – which was not the case in what you wrote, you would have to ask, “Can the Apostle Paul speak about healthy marriages while he himself promotes an unhealthy marriage.” I guess he could, but I would not follow him. Paul wrote in Philippians, “Imitate me.” and “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me – practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.” Paul did not just tell the Philippians what to do . . . He lived it out. We are told to be Christ-like. Many people have WWJD bracelets. The whole idea is that a leader should lead by example – Barack Obama has not and IS NOT leading by example. Jesus didn’t lie and then tell us to speak truth. Paul didn’t tell us to love our spouse as Christ loved the church and then hated the church. Barack Obama is saying we need to take care of the poor and then he has not taken care of his aunt living in the Boston slums and he has hardly given to charity. Is it OK for you to pastor a church, tell your congregation to tithe and then you give nothing. Now that is a fair comparison. I find it hard to comprehend that you, a minister of the Gospel, would follow/vote for a man who lives a lie (his words and actions do not line up).
Again, I agree that sinfulness is going to happen in both forms of government. We agree there. My problem is that you stated that one is more Christian which is not true. Why not communism? It is based upon a classless society. Why not a monarchy – that is the way God set up his people. The problem is that sin permeates into all of these economic systems. Neither capitalism, socialism, nor communism is closer to Christianity. My point concerning legislating morality which you referred to later, is that one can put any of these into place but even though you say work hard, give to the poor, and let’s have a classless society – none of that will ever change men’s hearts. Only God can do that. People love power and money and changing from one form of economic system to another is not going to change that fact. Marxist truly believed that if you changed people’s economic base – then people would be changed. This is absolutely false.
You questioned my reference to Adam and Eve in the Garden. That’s fine, but it is right there in scripture. In Genesis, Chapter 2:15 – The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. We also know that God brought all the animals before Adam and Adam named all the living creatures. This all occurred before the fall.
Let me deal with your issue concerning what Christ said. The context in which Christ said “For you always have the poor with you” – was made in the context that a woman anointed him with oil in the house of Simon the Leper. This was not to a crowd of Jews. A woman poured a perfume on Jesus and it costs about a year’s wage. It was the disciples that were indignant saying that it was a waste.
You might want to consult your experts again.
The event is recorded in three of the gospels. Poverty was a huge problem in Jerusalem and the perfume could have fed or clothed many people. So the disciples were saying that “we could take care of the poor with all that money.” Isn’t that what you are promoting Chris??? Jesus defended the woman by saying “Leave her alone. The poor, you will always have with you, but you do not always have me.” Now we know that Judas did not care about the poor and he was taking money from the moneybag to help himself. (WOW, kind of sounds like the president elect. Said one thing but lived another.) Jesus said nothing about helping the poor – he simply said “you always have the poor. Another question for you – If we do not always have the poor – Why does Jesus separate the sheep and the goats? Who were the sheep helping and the goats not helping? The answer is the hungry, thirsty, the naked, etc . . . So all these hungry, thirsty people were rich or middle class???? Just an observation – It has been 2000 years . . . we still have the poor. England is socialistic, they still have poor. There will always be poor. Jesus stated a fact.
Let’s look at some claims you put forward. As I stated before – there is no debate that the rich should help the poor. Again – as a capitalistic society – the United States has become the richest nation in the world – so shouldn’t we give more to help the poor or are we simply a bunch of greedy people who need socialism to help those in need? Well, let’s look at some more facts.
A report by MSNBC – not even close to be a conservative news agency, reported in 2007 on world charitable giving. By the way – this absolutely blows the idea that we should be socialistic in order to help others. Let me give you just a few quotes from the story. The story begins with the fact that Americans gave nearly 300 Billion to charitable causes.
“Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country.”
“Individuals gave a combined 75.6% of the total. With Bequests, that rises to 83.4%.” – (again, Barack and Biden didn’t help much in this area)
“The biggest chunk of the money, 32.8% goes to religious organizations.”
So you are buying into a lie that capitalism is simply greedy individuals and we need socialism to help people give to help others. The numbers do not support your argument. Britain’s economic system is socialism and it gave less than half what the United States gave.
You wrote: When Israel was first a country, there was no king, it was simply a theocracy. God was the boss and people did what he wanted, or so the plan went.
The only part of that statement that is correct is that God set up a theocracy and he was the boss. The people did not do what God wanted – Just read Nehemiah 9 – a very good summary of the history of Israel. Even in the economic system set up by God – man’s sinfulness got in the way. Man went on to on to demand a king and God did not say “great idea.” Instead, there was a warning – this was not a good thing. The king would take the sons for soldiers and to plow the land. The daughters would also serve the king. The warning was that instead of the freedom that the people had in God – they would end up serving a king (the government). Again, anything but a theocracy is because of the sinfulness of man – socialism is not closer to being Christian.
You do not like the passage that says the Lord makes rich and the Lord makes poor because you think it sounds like favoritism???? In no way do I want to sound like a jerk, but it really does not matter what you think when it comes to this issue. God’s word says that that the Lord makes rich and the Lord makes poor. Do you believe in the truth of God’s word or not? God chose a nation (Israel) and not other nations. Was that favoritism? Scripture says that God has mercy on whomever he wills and he hardens whomever he wills. Is that fair? God said, “I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated.” It doesn’t matter if you and I agree with this or if we understand it. God says, “My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways. Was God practicing favoritism when it says in James 2:5 that God has chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs in the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? Why are the poor chosen to be rich in faith and not the rich? That verse alone raises some serious questions about your socialistic ideas.
Again, I am not debating the issue of helping others. If we are practicing this in our lives . . . great. If not . . . we should. So, if the government taxes us more to help the poor – does it then take the responsibility from us to do it on our own???? What about the person who simply cannot afford to give any more after being taxed to such a great degree? Is that person living in sin???
Your comments concerning the Who Really Cares . . . do not make sense. Look, there are atheists’ blogs out there claiming they are just as compassionate and just as moral – without Christ. No, the Bible does not speak to helping businesses to help people. Would you please show me where it says – Give to government so that the government can take on the individual responsibility to help people? It was the responsibility of the individual to live as God told them to live. It was not the responsibility of the government to do what the individual was supposed to do. God changes hearts and then people give. Governments cannot do what God does. The individual cannot relegate his or her responsibility to a government.
I guess you will say that the MSNBC report was biased. Numbers are not biased. They simply represent what they are. A bias would be for me to state that conservatives are better people than liberals. I have no facts to back that, but my bias. The fact is that religious conservatives give more . . . period. The MSNBC report also supports that.
Chris, if you are going to preach and pastor a church, you are going to have to rely on the wisdom of God’s word and not simply your feelings and your intellect. If you do not lean on God – you will not be teaching truth, you will be preaching the foolishness of man. You got any other issues you are confused about? Look at the word of God to find the truth.
By the way – you failed to answer many questions in my last comment concerning this subject.
Well, Revlyle, it sounds like you want to pick a fight. Do you have a blog of your own that could be used for your lengthy responses? If so, please post a link here and respond to this statement you made: " I am not going to argue with you concerning which form of government is better. You see it as socialism and I see it as capitalism. You have already stated that you see socialism as more Christian because it promotes equal distribution even though it also leads to laziness. I see capitalism as the way to go because it leads to ingenuity and hard work, but it certainly can lead to greed. As I said, you are young and you will see the difference as you mature. As you work to provide for your wife and family and the government takes more and more from you for other people and gives to causes that you do not agree with . . . it will not sit well with you. You will certainly not like it when there are others that could work – but simply enjoy living off your wages." I am just trying to think of any example I can where Jesus reflects this attitude in the gospels. I am astounded a minister of the gospel is so faithless that he feels if his taxes go to the poor, deserving or not, that God will not provide enough for his family anyways. Sorry to bring this into your blog Chris, but I don't know of any other way to get in contact with "Rev" Lyle. What up Swaf. Grab a snack if you are feeling HUNGARY!
Here is what I am going to do. I am going to try to answer you again. I think I tried to answer most of your concerns, but either you didn't listen or I didn't explain clearly. That is fine. We may just end up disagreeing. But I increasingly get the feeling that you are not here to dialog, but to teach me, the unenlightened liberal on the internet. If that is the case, I will just delete your future comments. I don't feel like wasting time if you are going to approach this in that way. If you want to discuss things, that is fine. I have several other comments on previous posts that clearly and vehemently disagreed with me. But they did not ignore my answers and make baseless statements. All that to say, I may have been unclear, or you may just disagree. Both are fine. I will try to clear up where I was unclear and maybe we can discuss the issues, not nitpick issues.
Socialism is very similar to communism. I have always been of the understanding that socialism is simply the economic side of communism, or that communism is just a more radical take on it. Either way, I consider that there are two major economic systems, one set forth by Marx and the other by Adam Smith. Again, could be wrong, I was a theology major. Now, I am not sure which questions I did not answer, but I thought I made it clear that I realized that sin was prominent in either situation. If it wasn't, we wouldn't even need to discuss economics. We would clearly live in an egalitarian society.
Lyle, please do not patronize me because I am younger than you. I have lived long enough to realize that I don't like it when the government does stupid things with my money (as I referenced the bailout earlier) and further, I could make assumptions about you which would be unfair as well. That is not a good way to achieve any sort of dialog.
Lyle, I don't understand how you can say that capitalism is selfish in one breath and that it is a better way in the next? There is nothing selfish about the gospel. Capitalism DID loan the money to people who could not pay it back. Honestly, there are arguments on both sides of this little fracas, some say it was the left that caused the housing crisis by forcing mortgages to those who couldn't afford it, some say it was the right because they were so greedy to get everyone to buy. I think it is all of our faults for wanting to live beyond our means.
Why didn't I look at them before the election? Because it didn't matter to me. It is disappointed to me, but I would be as disappointed if McCain hadn't given much to charity. Both are senators and leaders of our country by virtue of that. However, their personal giving or lack of giving does not qualify or disqualify them from leading others in that way. I may have provided an ad hominem argument, but you should know that is a logical fallacy. Attacking the person does not defeat the idea. That was my whole point in discussing the fact that neither Paul nor Jesus was married. Both were still qualified to speak on marriage even though they were not. A drug addict is qualified to speak on the necessity to stay clean, even if he is not. I don't know how to spell that out any better. I do agree though, I want someone to practice what they preach. But I think as a pastor you should know, none of us are capable of that to a full degree. I still struggle with sin, and I would imagine you do too. Does that mean we are unqualified to speak against it? Absolutely not!
Now, I spoke a little to the fact that we can follow someone who isn't perfect, but lets keep on that thread, since you took a large paragraph to speak to it. Paul told us to live without certain sin, but if we are completely honest, we know that Paul struggled with sin. So should we cease following him? No. We should realize that people are messed up. Barak Obama is a sinful person too. My choice of him was not my statement that he was perfect, it was my statement that I thought he was the best option. Lyle, again lets cut the rhetoric. Statements like "I find it hard to comprehend that you, a minister of the gospel, would follow/vote for a man who lives a lie." Are you trying to tell me that John McCain 100% does what he says? That is strange since he was prochoice for a long time before this election. I think it is easy to throw in simple answers or glib sound bytes like that to increase your strength on a position, but it is not honest. I know many Christians whose opinions I value who voted for Obama. I know many on the other side who voted for McCain. Both felt like they did was God would want them to. I guess the liberals were just wrong, right?! Its not that easy. I hope you can see that.
Lyle, I just don't see any merits of capitalism that are inherently Christian. You could say hard work, which I suppose you will, but that is a byproduct of capitalism. It only occurs because of greed, which I think you would agree is bad. Socialism promotes equality, which is inherently biblical. Again, the heart behind both systems is the point. I have already said that I know socialism will never work. It leads to laziness. But I think you should admit as well that unchecked capitalism does not work either. It leads to oppression.
So it is there. Point taken, and I already agreed that work is good. But to say naming the animals is a job is a bit of stretch, but that is neither here nor there.
"For you will always have the poor" was not in a crowd of Jews?! What were the disciples?! I have never said "lets take the money we would use otherwise to worship Jesus and help the poor." However, in the parable you yourself reference about the sheep and goats, they ask "when did we do such and such to you?" and Jesus said "when you did it for the least of these, you did to me" so it seems to me that we do both concurrently. Jesus stated a fact because of the disobedience of the people. He was not stating something he was resigned to. I have yet to read a commentary on that passage that says otherwise. If you have, just tell me which.
The United States may have given that much, but how much percentage per person is that? The fact is that we are by far the richest nation in the world.
Britain may have given less than half of what we gave, but I would be willing to bet that their GNP would be much less than half of ours. We have more people and our people make more money. Statistics don't lie, but they can be put into situations that don't show all the truth.
Lyle, again, read what I wrote. The key to that was "or so the plan went." Clearly I am recognizing that the people did not follow God. In their theocracy, they were much closer to socialism than capitalism. That was God's choice of government, and it didn't work out too well. That is what happens when people get involved.
I believe that passage you are referencing is a Psalm. If I am wrong, sorry, feel free to correct me. But to pull out theology like that from the psalms is a dangerous practice. The point the psalmist is making is that God is sovereign. "do you believe in the truth of God's word or not?" This is the type of false dichotomy I would prefer to avoid in the future. If I interpret something different from you, that does not mean I don't believe the scriptures. I will not accuse you of that, don't accuse me of it.
When God chose Israel it was for a vocation, not for salvation or even riches. There were a ton of nations richer than Israel, and many outside who were saved. Israel was chosen to make God known to everyone. Not favoritism at all. When God said he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy, he was actually speaking to Israel and telling them if he wanted to have mercy on those who were not from Israel, he could. It was his prerogative.
I take the passage in James more as though it is much easier for the poor to have faith. Blessed are the poor, for they are rich in the kingdom of God. This tells me that we as Americans should be very afraid. We don't know what it is to have faith, to be blessed many times because we have too much money.
It shouldn't take the responsibility from us, we should still do it. Helping is not always financial. "Is that person living in sin?" I think God understands our situation. I think for the most part though, we as Americans don't really understand what it means to be poor. We may have to miss out on some new clothes or a new ipod, but that isn't poverty.
My comments do make sense. Of course those who are religious will give more, they are religious. I don't really know how else to say that, it would be like saying "well those who are religious are more likely to wait on sex till marriage" well, yes. My point was it makes an easy target if you compare "religious right wingers" to "secular left wingers" but if you compared "secular right wingers" to "religious left wingers" those who are religious would probably still give more. Does not mean that the right is "better."
Again, the OT was the law of the land. There were taxes, taxes helped poor and widows... etc etc. It was the responsibility of both the government and the individual, as it should be now.
Lyle, I appreciate the encouragement, but to think that I rely more on my feelings and intellect than scripture is a pretty unfair generalization, since you have had all of two "conversations" with me through a blog. I disagree with you, that does not mean I disagree with God. I do not pretend to have it all figured out, again, a lot of this blog is just me thinking on the internet.
I am confused about a lot. Namely why I grew up in a church that acted like Christians had to be Republicans and there was only one way a Christian could vote. Christians have disagreed since the ascension, its going to continue, but maybe we could start to discuss it instead of just branding the other side as gross heretics?
I thought I answered most of your questions. If you have more, just list them as questions so I can see them more clearly. My next blog is moving on though, but we can continue this in the comments.
Chris,
Thanks for your response. I guess I struggle to see what the problem is. I thought we were dialoguing. I thought you were putting your view forward and I was doing the same. I thought you were attempting to use scripture support what you believe and I was doing the same thing. I am perplexed that you feel that I am ignoring your answers. The reason my postings are so long is so that I can address each issue that you have brought up.
You state that I am attempting to teach. Certainly, I am attempting to inform, WHILE I am also learning. When did dialogue not involve both? As far as patronizing you – that is not even being fair. Would it be patronizing for you to talk to an 18 year old and tell them that when they get some more life experience their view will change on some issues? According to your profile, you are 25 and that is only a 7 year difference. There is more than a 7 year difference between you and me and I promise you that you will change some of your views as you grow older.
I guess we should sum up what we agree and then again look at how we differ.
We both believe in Christ.
We both agree that every economic system is corrupted by sin.
We both agree that God’s word is true.
We both agree that people should help the poor
We both agree that working is good
(if I am mistaken about these – let me know)
Where we disagree:
1. One system is more Christian. You believe socialism – I do not believe any of them are more Christian. Christianity is not about forcing people to conform to rules. Christianity is about an encounter that leads to repentance (change of mind) so that the individual then begins to live differently than before. The dead person is alive. The selfish person is now unselfish. The liar becomes truthful etc . . . None of the systems lead a person to Christ and none lead to a heart change, so none are more “Christian.”
What you are doing is that you are taking one issue or command “give to the poor” and saying that because socialism forces that – then it is more Christian. We both agree that socialism can lead to laziness.
Why not take one principle that capitalism promotes, working hard, and come to the same conclusion? The Bible says:
God worked
Genesis 2 – Work is regarded as good
God tells us to work 6 days and rest the 7th
So, capitalism also promotes “work,” a Biblical principle, and therefore why is it not also Christian. You state that work only occurs because of greed. That is not true. If no one is going to clothe me, feed me, or give me shelter is it greedy to go and work so that I will have those things. Now you might then take this down the line of – what about more than you need??? Well, is it greedy for me to want my home to be air-conditioned? It is greedy that I want a TV. Is it greedy for me to want a car? None of those things are needed for life. So if these things constitute greed, then I am guilty of being greedy. If they do not constitute greed and I know that the government is not going to give them to me, it promotes work in order for me to obtain these things.
The problem is that both economic systems have problems as you and I have both stated. Socialism leads to laziness and capitalism leads to greed. Neither system leads to Christ. Neither system is more Christian.
2. Concerning Barack Obama’s leadership. First of all, don’t just imagine that I sin, you should know that I do. I am simply a sinner saved by grace. As I study God’s word, and more of the sin in my life is revealed, as a repentant man, I change my life. It is the conviction of God that He changes my heart and my mind about my life and I conform to what He has said. That is the difference between a leader who lives by example and one who simply has the rhetoric. You stated that it doesn’t matter what Barack Obama does – it does not disqualify them from leading others in that way. Well, I have no problem with the fact that truth is truth no matter if you believe it, deny it, or live it. As I stated many times – we ought to help others. My life reflects that belief. But to say one thing and then live another is the very definition of a hypocrite. Obama claims to be a Christian. He obviously knows that the poor need to be helped and yet his life does not reflect it. I cannot follow that type of leader. The only type of leadership provided by Jesus and Paul was one of example – that is it.
3. You are going to the extreme when talking about sinlessness. I am not claiming that anyone, myself, McCain, or Obama could be perfect. You are still comparing apples to oranges. Barack Obama could speak to women’s rights even though he is not a woman. BUT he could not lead or speak about the horrible reality of spousal abuse if he beat his wife. It is true that no one should abuse their spouse, but he losses all credibility to speak on the subject. It simply does not make sense. One the main issues that Barack campaigned on was “helping those who have less.” He obviously knows it is the right thing to do – and yet he does the opposite. Again – this is only one issue why I did not vote for Obama.
4. Concerning the passage with Christ saying that we will always have the poor. I don’t know what else I can show you in scripture and history to simply state – no economic system will ever get rid of poverty. Chris – if you disagree with me on everything else – this should be one that we resolve. There have always been poor – in all types of systems. There will always be poor. Poverty will exist until Christ returns. The story concerning the sheep and the goats talks about when Christ returns. He is separating the sheep and the goats because the sheep were feeding the hungry and giving drink to the thirsty. The sheep were clothing the naked and inviting the homeless in. The sheep were taking care of the sick and visiting those in prison. All of those things will exist until Christ returns. You wrote: “Jesus stated a fact because of the disobedience of the people.” Well Chris – to follow your logic – will disobedience go away until Christ returns? You have nothing to back up your idea that one day we, mankind, will do away with poverty. The Bible does not support that idea and history does not support it.
5. I do not know the GDP for Great Britain. I do not know the % per person given here in America. What is incredible, is that you want to know the numbers for people in America, but you did not care to know the numbers for your president. I have given you two different sources that state that America is not all about greed and that especially is true concerning religious conservatives, but no matter what I present – because America is a rich country – it must all be about greed. Even on your blog – one comment toward me suggest that I am faithless because I do not want the government taxing me more and more. Again, I refer to Barack Obama stating that he did not know when selfishness became a virtue simply because people do not want to be taxed. Total hypocrisy. He wants to keep his money, but he is all ready to come and take others. I can live on less, there is no doubt, but I do not believe that decision is for the government to make for me. Along those same lines – some of my taxes do not go to help the poor. They go towards things such as abortion which I cannot support. So my money is given to things that I believe are absolutely against scripture.
6. The passage: “The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts” is not from Psalms – it is actually Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel. I think we found something else that we agree on – God is sovereign. That is what you wrote and yet you question if God makes some rich and some poor. Over and over in scripture, it is God that is given credit for choosing to bless and God who is given credit for tearing down. Scripture states that it was God who gave Solomon his riches. Scripture states that it was God who raised up Babylon. You stated that for God to make one rich and another poor sounded like favoritism. What are you going to do with that throughout scripture? Again, there is really no ground for you to disagree. God did choose a nation, a people out of all the people in the world in which His Son would come. He chose a nation through which he would spread his glory and the gospel. That is not favoritism, that is God’s sovereignty. God does make some rich and some poor. That is not favoritism, that is God’s sovereignty. Let me give you a few more passages to chew on.
Proverbs 10:4 – A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich
Proverbs 10:22 – The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and he adds no sorrow with it
What about a man that experienced both poverty and wealth – Job. Listen to what God wrote though him. Remember this is right after Job lost his wealth and his family. Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."
7. I think we may have found some more common ground. You are correct that we do not understand poverty here in America. Why is that when we have been functioning under a greedy capitalistic economic system? I promise you it is not because the socialist governments have been helping our poor. The reason Americans do not understand poverty is that we have relative poverty here in America, but we do not have (for the most part) absolute poverty. America has program after program to take care of those who have less. You are making my argument for me. The poor have housing, healthcare, food stamps, education, etc . . . As I stated before . . . those in relative poverty will never move out of relative poverty without doing it themselves. The government will never be able to accomplish that task. It can’t simply from a mathematical standpoint. In order for the relative poor to gain in riches through the government, the rich must become richer.
You were surprised about the numbers concerning Barack Obama’s charitable giving, so let me give you some more numbers that may surprise you. Correct me if I am wrong, but you feel that we need Barack Obama to lead us in the direction of taking care of the poor. As you already stated – there isn’t poverty in America. Even when it comes to paying taxes – America is helping the poor. In 2006, the top 50% of American tax payers paid 97.01% of the federal income tax. The bottom 50% only paid 2.99%. That is incredible. I stand behind the fact that America has reached out and taken care of the poor. Could we do more – yes, but that will not come from an economic system – it will come from a change in heart.
I did still have some questions. You told me to ask. So here it goes. As I stated many times – my questions do not refer to those who are physically and/or mentally handicapped.
1. If people are so taxed that they cannot help the poor – are they in sin? You avoided the question by stating that we can give more than money – we can give time. That is not what we are talking about on this blog. Be careful going down that path as well. If people give time to your church – does that negate their responsibility to give money.
2. Should help be perpetual when people can work and they simply don’t want to?
3. Should people who can work have to work order to get welfare?
4. Should people be allowed to starve if they do not work?
5. What scriptural reference or historical reference do you have concerning man abolishing poverty?
6. Why does England have poverty since they have a socialist economic system?
7. Why isn’t communism more Christian?
8. Why not promote a monarchy as God did?
9. What do you do with Paul in 2 Thes. 3 and his view concerning work?
10. How do we resolve being a good steward verses perpetual welfare?
Hopefully you will not delete, but continue to dialogue. I am not trying to start a fight. I am attempting to learn how you come to the conclusions that you have come to. I am also presenting why I have come to the conclusion that I have. This is good. We are sharing why we believe what we believe.
Grant,
I know this is Chris’ blog, but the idea, I believe, is to exchange thoughts. I did not come here to start a fight. I am passionate about God’s word. I am passionate about truth. I am passionate about my Father. I am sorry if my words sound harsh to you or to Chris. I believe I have supported everything I said with either statistics or scripture.
Please to do not accuse me of being faithless. There is really no need for me to defend myself on this, but let me say that even though I have more than I need now, there was a time where I made below the poverty level. My first degree was in Architecture and when I surrendered to the ministry at 28, I worked for a church making $100 a week. That was my salary for 2 years. So to do the math for you, I made only $10,400 in two years at the age of almost 30. The next year I got a raise to $10,000. So in three years, my total income was a little over $20,000. It was tough and my wife and I depended on the Lord to see us through it. I tell you that story for only one reason – to say that God saw us through and that He gets the glory for it.
You are thinking . . . where is this attitude in the Gospels – that I do not want to be taxed more. My disagreement with Chris is that socialism is not more Christian AND you will not erase poverty through government intervention. IF you think that I am harsh concerning this subject go to 2 Thessalonians 3. You will see what Paul has to say about those that do not work. He doesn’t believe they should eat.
I never said I was worried about higher taxes. I never said that I do not believe God will take care of me or my family. Even when Israel was under the bondage of Babylon, God told them: I know the plans I have for you, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. There were many times that my wife and I had to claim that as we tried to make ends meet during those three years. Even now, it is with great emotion that I write . . . God has been good. Isn’t it awesome that I can look back and see what God has done, rather than think, even for a moment, the government took care of me?
Lyle,
I appreciate the change in tone. The problem is saying things like "Well you young folks don't know what you are talking about" and things like that. My opinions may change, they certainly have before, or they may not. I have received the same lecture from my brother-in-law and it was not well received either time. I think I have been through quite a few things that most 25 year olds have not. I also know that you should not think someone is ignorant because they are younger than you. Isn't that what Paul was telling Timothy about? But, I feel like you understand my point so we can leave it alone.
I think there are several ways we can dialog better. You can treat me as an equal. I may not have earned that in your eyes, but again this is my blog. The people who have disagreed with me in other posts still have treated me as an equal. You can not pretend that this is simple or cut and dry. If that were so, there would not be so many Christians who disagree. On my blog alone, I see several on each side. That tells me this and other political issues are not simple. Otherwise, I appreciate the time you take to write, and I think this is profitable for both of us. I write a lot of my blogs just trying to get some thoughts out, not trying to galvanize my opinions. I am of torn mind on many of these issues.
You are right on what we agree on.
I am going to skip down and answer your questions first, then come back to the areas we disagree.
1. I thought I answered this, but I will try again. Are they in sin? No. I don't think so. If they cannot afford to give any more, but the government is giving for them, if the government has effectively ended poverty, then there would be no purpose to give. I think giving time is as valuable as giving money. Or people could give work. If people in my church can't afford to tithe (and I mean really can't afford it) I would rather them feed their children than tithe.
2. Should help be perpetual...
This one is hard for me. Here is why. As Christians, we are called to give help no matter what. I don't see Christ saying "alright, if the least of these can't work, then give them something to eat" but he just says give them something to eat. So for us, I think it is clear we are called to help. However, I also see there some enabling. At some point helping people becomes bad for them. They would be better off having to work because that will help them in the long run. So, in a way it shouldn't be, but in a way it should be. We should always be willing to give, but the person should eventually stop needing it.
3. Yes. They should. But if they aren't, whats that to us? Again, we can't do anything about what they do, we can only be obedient. Our obedience is the help of those who need it. I think the government should probably require them to work, but in socialism everyone is required to work. As a Christian though, I can't be concerned with whether they are working or not. I can only worry that I am called to give to them.
4. No.
5. What scriptural reference do you have concerning man abolishing slavery? Or what about this, what scripture do you have that says we can abolish sin? Does that mean we should stop trying? I don't see anywhere in scripture that God treats poverty as a good thing. Certainly good can come of it, just as good can come of sin or death.
6. To be honest, I never considered the UK socialist. They may lean that direction, but either way, the question is valid, "Why is there poverty in socialist countries?" Several reasons, I think. One, they don't have the natural resources we do. If we decided our goal as a country was to feed everyone here, we have the land and resources to do that. Same thing with many other countries. Second, back to my largest argument against socialism, it causes laziness in a lot of ways. If (big if here) everyone worked as hard as they could, and no one had excessive money or food, then I believe we would have enough for the world. We would need to stop population growth, but we can do that with contraceptives. Again, we are broken people in broken systems. I never said this would work to perfection, I am just saying that in theory, socialism is more Christian.
7. I fail to see the large distinction you are drawing between socialism and communism. If you laid that out for me I could tell you.
8. God did what he could with what he had. A democracy could never have worked three thousand years ago. (Some would say it doesn't work too well now) they didn't have information as easily as we do, and it was more necessary to have a central seat of power. Monarchy was not God's first choice either, I think the ideal would be a theocratic socialist government, something we won't see this side of the eschaton.
9. Paul's instruction was to Christians. Not only that, but he wasn't saying we should enforce that on anyone else. He was saying to each of us, if you don't work, you shouldn't eat. And again, I am not saying we shouldn't work. But our primary concern should be ourselves. We can't sit around all day worrying that someone will get welfare that doesn't deserve it.
10. How do you resolve being a good steward with the parable of the prodigal son? I realize we do not live in an ideal world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Giving to others does not always seem like good stewardship, but we are still called to do it. The father in the prodigal son was not necessarily a good steward, the son had shown he was a poor bet. But we are called to be generous and to give.
Back to where we disagree:
1. I believe socialism is more Christian because of the base ideas behind it. It promotes equality, while capitalism promotes whoever is the strongest. It does promote hard work, but not because hard work is good, but because hard work leads to gain. People do not work hard in a capitalist system because God wants them to, they work hard because they need to. That would be like saying something like "well the spread of aids has lessened sex between unwed couples, aids must be a good thing." I think you can see how absurd that is. Just because it forces a good thing, does not mean that the system is good. In an ideal socialist society, everyone would work hard too.
It may not be greedy, but let me ask you this, if you could give up your TV and AC and you would know that someone down the street from you would be able to eat for a year, someone who could otherwise not afford to, would you give those things up? I would hope so. I would hope I would too. If we lived in an ideal socialist society, some of us would have to give up somethings, but if that made other peoples lives better, I don't see the problem.
We are not going to agree on that, I think the basis of one is about equality among people. That seems very much more Christian to me than the survival of the fittest.
2. I just don't see how you can say Obama isn't changing. He may not give as much to charity as either of us would like, but that is not all there is to it. And he may have given more than he put on his tax return. My point in saying that we are both sinners is that we are both in many ways hypocrites. We know the good we ought to do and fail to do it at times. Does that disqualify either of us from leadership? I think not. Jesus was the only one without hypocrisy, so to dismiss the president elect because you see him as a hypocrite seems a bit shortsighted.
3. I think to say he does the opposite in an over simplification. He has done quite a bit to help those who have less. His tax returns may not show it, but numbers can be misleading. I don't know all that he has done, neither do you. On a similar issue, John McCain has usually been prochoice, but for this election he was prolife. Does that sit well with you? I don't see any difference there. Again, I realize Obama is anything but perfect. He makes mistakes and will continue. But I think he was a better option for many reasons, including his desire to help the poor.
4. There have always been poor. You are right. There probably always will be. That does not mean that God or we should be resigned to it. Show me a commentary that says otherwise. I have yet to read one that does. Christ was not resigned to the fact, but was pointing out the disobedience of his people. Disobedience will not go away until Christ returns, I guess we should stop trying and just live in sin right?! There are areas that we have become obedient that we previously were not. Slavery existed for the longest time, and I think it was a sin. It does not exist any longer here in the United States. Looks like progress to me. Progress is possible, I think we could eliminate poverty. Sin would still exist, but poverty does not have to. History does not support that we will go to the moon, but it happened. History does not support that women will get equal rights, but its in the works. History does not support a lot of things that have changed.
5. Really this is mostly opinion, so the fact that we disagree is just that. I don't think I said America was all about greed, if I did I did not mean that. However, we are pretty greedy.
6. If God really did make some rich and some poor, then why would he tell us to give to the poor? That just doesn't make sense to me. I see God's sovereignty differently than you probably do. I think those passage in scripture speak of what God has allowed, not what he has purposed. God has allowed some to go to hell, but did not desire that. God has allowed some to be poor, but did not desire it.
The proverbs passages are descriptive, not prescriptive. Most proverbs are just the writer looking around at the world and writing what he sees. Obviously, those who work hard usually have more money. That is just a fact. It is not necessarily good though.
Did the lord really take away in Job? Or was it Satan who did? Because the story I read says that Satan took away Job's family and possessions. However, again, I would say that God allowed these things to happen, not caused them.
7. Again, capitalism works much better. I have never questioned that. Because it works better does not mean that it is better though. We agree on the practical aspect of this. No need to belabor the point.
I don't think I ever said socialism would work here, I just said that it is closer to what God would intend. Each works as hard as he can, according to his abilities, and each shares the wealth. Does a man who works as hard as he can do understand how to be a really good plumber deserve less than a man who works as hard as he can to be a really good doctor? The plumber has an easier job, but what if the guy just isn't as smart? Is it his fault? I think God wants equality, and that is what I see promoted in socialism. So while it will not work this side of eternity, I see it as a more biblical system.
You wrote, “The problem is saying things like, “Well you young folks don’t know what you are talking about.” For the record – I never wrote that. Please point out one time that I wrote that phrase. I simply said you will change your views on some things as you get older.
You wrote: “You can treat me as an equal.” I imagine that you are a much better man than me. When I was 25 I was not leaving my comfort zone and following the Lord. I didn’t know how to spell theology; much less was I following God’s call to go preach or minister. I only thought of myself. I did not think of my wife. I did not think of others. I was selfish to the core. I still fight that battle. I, with humility, question why God would allow me to pastor a church, and yet God continues to be good to me. Even in my church, there are many members who are better than me. If you thought for a moment that I was implying being “better” than you, you are incorrect. You certainly want to aim higher than being my equal.
After reading your last post, I now see the issue is not that you and I disagree concerning socialism being more Christian – you and I disagree on how we read and understand God and his word.
Some comments on what you wrote:
You wrote: “God did what he could with what he had” . . . Interesting. This is a statement I would never write about God and I do not believe. God created out of nothing. God makes the lame walk, the blind see, the dead . . . alive and somehow you believe he was limited in establishing a government in Israel. I believe that is a very small view of a very large God. Your statement leaves the possibility that there is something better that God could have done. God’s actions are always perfect. God did EXACTLY what was in his plan. No more and no less. This is one area that you and I obviously disagree.
How do I resolve being a good steward with the Prodigal son? Well, the parable was not teaching about stewardship, charity, or the poor – and I have yet to see a scholar who believes this. The father gave to the son what was due him based upon inheritance. If you read the passage, it clearly states that the son asked for the property that was coming to him. The son got it before the father died, but it was going to be his anyway. I could ask the question, “How do you resolve socialism with the Prodigal Son.” The money belonged to the son – so why should it be kept from him, but I wouldn’t because the parable has nothing to do with that.
You asked – “What scripture do I have that says we can abolish sin?” None, which is my point. We must strive to get rid of sin in our lives – but we will still be sinners until we die or this age comes to an end. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. I have shown you passages which speak to the fact of poverty is here, will be here until Christ returns and it is part of God’s plan. God makes rich and God makes poor. Again, I believe that is part of God’s perfect plan.
I agree with you 100% about the issue of doing what we can to help those with less. Remember – we agree on that, but I also know that no government and no organization will stop poverty. You wrote, “There probably always will be (the poor)” and then you wrote “I think we could eliminate poverty.” – well . . . which is it? Again, you need to define if you are talking about absolute or relative poverty.
Another statement that you made that is very disturbing – “The proverbs passages are descriptive, not prescriptive. Most proverbs are just the writer looking around at the world and writing what he sees.” The writer of Proverbs was/is God. God is not looking around and making observations. God is imparting wisdom through Solomon. You will notice that the book of proverbs is listed a wisdom literature – not observation literature.
Concerning the book of Job - I have found that many times I know the stories of the Bible, but I seem to forget the details. That is one reason I love teaching narratives. It is awesome. When you go back and read Job, some things that you thought you knew – maybe you simply forgot or you did not see before.
1. Job was very rich and he was the greatest of all the people of the east. Scripture says that God put a hedge around him and his house AND he blessed the work of his hands and his possessions have increased in the land. AGAIN – God is the one who made him rich.
2. The death of his family – First: Sabeans fell upon them, second: the fire of God fell from heaven, third: the Chaldeans formed three groups and raided, and finally a great wind came and struck down the four corners of the house. So the question is . . . did Satan do this? Well, let’s look at the “natural elements. The Fire of God rained down – that isn’t Satan. The wind . . . Well God makes it clear later in the book of Job that He is in control of that. So what about the people who came in and killed . . . I do not know and the Bible does not tell us . . . yet. Of course Job gives God credit for giving him the children and wealth and he gives credit to God for taking the children and wealth away.
Now go to Job 2:3 – And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” So it was God who went against Job.
3. What about Job’s health – was that Satan or God? Well scripture says that Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. But don’t pass by Job 2:5 – Satan cannot do this with out God giving him (Satan) the ability. Satan says “But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh and he will curse you to your face.” Job seems to know where this comes from – What do you think Christ . . . Satan or God???? Well, according to scripture (again written by God through Job) Job says, “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”
I write all that to say – we are so quick to go to God and praise his name when good comes our way – but God does take away from us as well. He does make Job rich. God made him poor and took his health. Read the story and you will see in the end of Job that he makes him rich again. Let me give you the passage in Job 42 that supports all that I have written.
And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold. And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning.
So according to this book . . .
Who brought riches to Job?
Who brought heartache and poverty to Job?
Who restored riches to job?
Let’s talk about the plumber and the doctor. Should they make the same amount of money? The plumber works hard and he works long hours and it is certainly a tough trade. The doctor spends 12 years in school. He amasses hundreds of thousands in medical bills and once he is done, he still works hard and long hours. By the way, he also has to carry massive amounts of malpractice insurance incase he makes a mistake. Therefore since he spend more time in school, accrued more debt to go to school, spends a massive amount of money for insurance incase he makes a mistake, AND he has the responsibility for human life in his job . . . Yeah, I think he should make more. So, let’s look at your arguments for socialism.
Let the government pay for his school and his malpractice so that way he can make the same as the plumber. Couple of problems . . . When the plumber messes up, it doesn’t kill people. The plumber still doesn’t have to take 12 years out of his life to achieve the knowledge and skill of a doctor. SOOOOOO, if I am thinking of being a doctor, but I make no more than a plumber, YET; I still have the responsibility of human life – I might as well be a plumber. There is no incentive to do better or more.
Just curious Chris, Have you ever fixed a clogged drain or changed a pipe . . . you know . . . plumber type stuff? Have you ever attempted to do something so simple as take out someone’s tonsils???? The idea that plumbers and doctors should make the same amount makes no sense.
Lastly, I saw on your profile that you listed Velvet Elvis as a favorite read. I have some major, and I mean major, problems with the book, but since you listed it I wonder why you did not take Rob Bell’s advice. He warns against labeling things Christian. You have essentially done that by saying that socialism is “more Christian.” Just wondering . . . .
Lyle, you may not have used those words, but the intent seemed the same to me. If you didn't mean that, fine, but I don't think you would be very happy if I said "well, learn Greek and Hebrew then tell me if you read the Bible that way..." I think you might find it mildly patronizing (whether you know them or not is immaterial, the point is you are older than me, but that does not necessarily mean you have figured more out)
Lyle, I appreciate the humility, but that is not what I am driving at at all. For any significant discussion to take place, we each have to give the other credit for knowing some things that we do not. I just expect us to be civil and be able to treat each other as equals, because I do know that God values us equally.
Yes, the issue certainly stems from our different understanding of the nature of God and the nature of the bible.
We do obviously agree. I believe God could do anything, but has chosen to limit himself in many ways. Things here do not work out exactly the way God wants, or do you believe that God wanted sin to reign here? God could orchestrate everything, but has allowed our decisions to matter, so he does not make everything happen exactly as he wants. In this way, God could have set up a perfect government with Israel, but he chose before hand that he would allow them to have free will. So, at that point, he did the best he could. May not sound good to you, but I think it is demeaning to God to make him the author of evil and the one who chooses to send people to hell.
The parable was teaching what God's relationship to us is like. The money did not belong to the son until the father died. In addition, the father welcomed him back and had a feast. The younger son sure did not earn that food. The parable's point may not have been stewardship, but it can still speak truth about stewardship. Or would you limit the bible in that way? Either way, the point remains, no where in the bible is anyone condemned for being too giving. No where is there a law against being too generous. (Unless I missed something)
That is my point exactly. Just as we should continue to fight to destroy sin in our lives, we should fight to end poverty. At all levels. I don't think it is likely to happen, but it could. Its certainly more likely to happen than that we would end sin.
When I say things like "there will probably always be the poor" I mean that. But I thought I put that in the context that there would probably always be the poor because we would probably always be disobedient. We could eliminate poverty if we were all willing to live on what we needed only.
So, did God write proverbs or did Solomon? Really, most scholarship doesn't attribute the proverbs completely to Solomon. Wisdom is observation most of the time. Are you telling me that if I followed the proverbs, things would work out exactly as they say? Proverbs 13.4 "the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied." Really?! You will never want for anything if you are diligent? I know some medschool students who would disagree. This is primarily an issue of a different understanding of the bible, I realize that. I think verbal plenary is a bad way to view the scriptures for a lot of reasons. But, that's neither here nor there.
God allowed those things to happen to Job, but even if he did cause them, that does not mean it is true in every case. There are stories of murder and adultery in the bible too, are we to think that in every case of murder and adultery that God caused it? I would hope not. God may have caused Job to be rich and he may have taken away from Job, but that does not mean it happens in every situation. Job was clearly an exceptional case. It is a pretty unique story in the bible and I don't see any others that have similar outcomes.
The doctor and the plumber. I guess I didn't really explain this very well. Suppose that a man is just not very smart. The best job he can possibly do is be a plumber. He spends years in school learning to be a plumber, years working for next to nothing to become a master plumber, and at that point, he has maxed out his talent. Say another man is more intellectually gifted. He spends the same amount of time learning to be a doctor, spends the same amount of money learning his trade. Who deserves to be paid more? The doctor because he was born smarter? That hardly seems right. Each has worked as hard as they could, they deserve the same pay. The malpractice etc is beside the point. Obviously in our current system, doctors deserve more and get more. But in a perfect system, just because someone is more or less talented does not mean they are worth more or less money. Again, I am not saying socialism would work or does work, I am saying that in theory, it is a better system.
I am just saying, everyone is equal and deserves to be able to have the same type of life.
I have changed all the parts of a shower before, and it was hell. It was the most frustrating job I can imagine. But if I studied for years to do that, I think I could get it done. I think I could take someone's tonsils out too, with the right training. But to be honest, some people would never be able to pick it up. Am I better than those people? Absolutely not! God gave me some gifts, but that does not mean that I deserve to live a comfortable life while someone else has to eek out a way to live on Ramen every day. I have yet to see a compelling reason why they should.
I never said socialism was in fact Christian. I said it was more Christian that capitalism. It promotes equality, which is a Christian virtue. So, in that case, I am not labeling it Christian. In addition, I don't agree with everything Rob Bell says, I agree with most, but he warns people not to just listen to him, but to read the scriptures. I know a lot of people have a lot of issues with him, but they usually come down to "he doesn't agree with me, he must not be a Christian." or "he doesn't mention the atonement enough, he must not be a Christian." I'm sorry you don't like Bell, but no one has convinced me that I shouldn't.
Lyle, I don't feel like you really have answered my questions. You have not told me why we should be so preoccupied with what other people do. You did not give me a scripture about abolishing slavery, or giving women equal rights, should we give up on those? Why do you see the UK as socialist? What differences do you draw between communism and socialism? You did not tell me if you would give up AC and TV so that someone you know could eat for a year, well, would you? You did not speak to the fact that all are hypocrites, even you and I. You have yet to show me scholarship that says Jesus was resigned to the fact that there will always be poor. Why does God tell us to help the poor if he made them that way?
In addition, you can answer these questions for me:
1. Does God make some people simply to send them to hell?
2. Did God ordain sin?
3. If all governments are what God desires, then I suppose the Nazis were his plan too?
4. Can God change the past? If so, do you pray that he would?
5. What is the point of prayer anyway?
I think your answers to these will really shed some light to me on some of our primary disagreements.
Chris,
I do not think we need to belabor the point – It is quite different to say you will change your views as you get older and “young folks don’t know what you are talking about.”
I have been civil. I have disagreed, but I have been civil since I came to this site. Whereas, I agree that I must treat you with respect, I do not have to value opinions as I value truth. What I mean by that is that whereas I can tolerate other people’s opinions (I don’t get angry with the person or what they believe) I do not have to, nor should I, value or regard their opinion as truth if it doesn’t measure up to the standard of truth as put forth in Scripture.
In regard to your opinion that “God did the Best He could with what he had to work with” (The Israelites): I believe that all that has happened is within God’s perfect plan. That should sum it up. God never does the best he could – God always does everything perfect. In Deuteronomy 32 the greatness of God is proclaimed and verse 4: “The Rock, his work is perfect for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity just and upright is He.” I do not believe that God wanted sin to reign, but he knew that man would rebel and even in knowing that (Is God omniscient?) He still created man. He was not surprised that man chose to rebel. He knew what man would do and even that was within God’s plan. Do you believe that God’s plan for salvation was reactionary? If someone made him the author of evil, that is incorrect. Scripture does not tell us that and I never said that. As far as sending some to hell . . . well first of all, God made it all perfect and we chose to rebel against God. So we brought sin into the world. God knew it and had already planned for it. Within that plan, He would have mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy and he will harden whomever he chooses to harden. God will make some vessels for honor and some vessels for destruction. So does God choose when he makes a vessel for destruction? Absolutely he does. What do you and I think about that – It makes absolutely no difference. It doesn’t matter if we think it is fair or right. Who are we, the clay, to say anything to the potter? Who are we, man, to say anything to God about how His perfect will is carried out?
In regard to the Prodigal Son: No doubt that the Bible never speaks about giving too much, but it certainly speaks to the issue of wasting. It is quite a stretch to equivocate a father having a celebration for a repentant son to giving to the poor. That is a VERY weak analogy. If you want to go down that road – I know people who are incredible givers because they take care of their children. Maybe you are right – Barack will probably give his daughters anything they want and technically they are poor. That must be the amount you suggested that he did not show on his tax returns. WOW, he really must care and give to the poor.
You wrote: “Ending poverty is more likely to happen than ending sin.” Then you wrote: “There would probably always be the poor because we would probably always be disobedient.” Come on Chris. Just say it. “There always will be poor because there will always be sin (disobedience).” If you need a scripture reference . . . here it is: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. SO the conclusion is either we know we sin OR we say we don’t sin and we are deceived because again, we sin. It is OK to admit that Jesus spoke truth when he said, “You will always have the poor.” You are writing in circles.
Concerning Proverbs – I think I made it quite clear – God wrote it all. I am not sure that I could have been clearer in my last post. God did not just write Proverbs – but the entire Bible. God did not write what he observed. He wrote what was true.
So, is Proverbs man’s observation??? Let’s look at your view of the proverbs and follow your line of thinking based you’re your thoughts that Proverbs 13:4 is not correct. You know, your medschool friends who worked hard and if the proverb were true they would want for nothing as you wrote.
A. Someone observed
B. Someone came to the conclusion that the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied
C. The desires of the diligent are not satisfied (according to you and your medschool friends)
D. Proverb 13:4 is wrong
E. Bible is wrong and therefore is in error
So according to you Chris – Proverbs 13:4 has an error in it. It does not speak truth. So, if there is error in the Bible, who decides what is true and what is not true. Is that up to you or whom??? What about all that stuff about Jesus Christ? Is that true? Why? Evidently there are errors, so how do we know if that is an error or not?
Now, let’s look at the correct view of this passage. First of all, isn’t time that you use that seminary education and use the Hebrew that you learned? Probably time to put the NIV Bible down and get serious as well. Here is the correct translation of the verse. You will notice that a very important word is left out of the NIV.
“The soul of the sluggard desires, and has nothing; but the soul of the diligent shall be abundantly gratified.” The ESV, KJV, NASB all contain the word soul and when one looks at the Hebrew – it is right there “nephesh.” The ESV says it like this and I will refer to that version from here out. “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.”
Proverbs is the wisdom of God written through man. I find it interesting that you quote the second part of the verse and yet you COMPLETELY left out the first part of verse 4. “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing.” So, now on to the second part of verse 4. It is a contrast between the soul of a sluggard and the soul of a diligent person. The second part of the verse literally means that the soul of the diligent are “fattened.” So in no way shape or form is the verse saying that your medschool students can work hard and get every penny or every position they desire. That is not what the verse is talking about. In context (when reading all of chapter 13) material things are not the main subject. Read the entire chapter and look at what is mentioned – wisdom, desire, life, soul, righteous, wicked, prudence, foolishness. So, when you were talking to the medschool students – they were talking about their soul . . . right?
Let’s talk about Job again: You wrote that God may have caused Job to be rich and he may have taken away from Job. Again, it is Ok Chris to say, “God did make Job rich and God did take away from Job. I clearly showed you passages that stated those facts. Why do you doubt God’s word??? Is Job an isolated case? Well, what about Nebuchadnezzar? It is clear the God raised up that nation and king. It is clear that God made him go mad and lose everything and it is clear that God restored him. So Job is not isolated. I could go from Genesis through Revelation and show you God making people rich and God tearing kingdoms and people down.
You asked about murder and adultery – did God cause it? That is a question that you and I cannot fully answer. God is not the author of evil and we know from scripture that God does not tempt with evil. If you are a Deist, then you believe that God is just sitting back and watching man make decisions. I suppose (I am making some assumptions here) that you believe that man is making choices and God intervenes as he wishes. I do not see scripture supporting either one of those views. God is in control of it all. I am not sure that a subject this deep can be covered in a paragraph. What you are asking about is providence. Whole chapters as well as books have been written on the subject. I would ask you to think about some things. If God is NOT in control of it all . . . why pray? If the murderer is simply a man or woman who chooses to murder, then why pray for safety for your wife when she is home alone or in the city by herself. If your answer is, “I believe that God will intervene and keep her safe.” Then my next question would be the same as Job’s. “Shall we receive good from God and shall we not receive evil?” If your wife was killed was it because God did not care, was not able, or did not intervene. As I see it in God’s word – The answer is that even though I pray that nothing bad happens to my wife or my children, if something does, it is within God’s perfect plan, not the best he could do plan. That doesn’t mean I do not mourn and that doesn’t mean it is not painful. What it means is that I am human and I have such a limited (by time, space, knowledge, etc . . .) understanding, but I trust in a Just, Good, and Holy God.
Ah yes, the doctor and plumber . . . So now you want to know why it is fair that a man who maxes out his mental capacity as a plumber doesn’t make as much as the man who’s intellectual capability allows him to become a doctor. You stated in a previous blog that you believe in the sovereignty of God . . . well there you have it. God decided the mental capability of both men. Neither you nor I NOR either of the two men have any choice in the matter. God is sovereign. If you believe in the sovereignty of God, I wonder why you would even ask that question. By the way, it is a fantasy by either you or an egotistical plumber to suggest that one would spend the same amount of time and money learning the trade of plumbing as a doctor learning his skill. At least ask real world questions.
I have a friend who used to work in HR for a bank. She stated that many times she would have tellers come in and say, “I need to make more money. I have a house payment, car payment, a new baby, and I just bought new furniture.” She would simply say, “A bank teller makes within this range of salary. I cannot pay you more, what you are saying is that you need another job.” My point is this. According to you the bank teller (Plumber) and the bank president (doctor) should make the same amount of money because they both work hard. That simply is not true. The bank president goes home each night with the responsibility of all the bank tellers, whereas the bank teller simply goes home with a job to do the next day. I have both worked for others in the secular world and I have owned a small business in the secular world. There is a WORLD of difference between the two. But of course, if I tell you that if you ever walked in both of those roles your perspective would change, I am patronizing you again. You stated that malpractice is beside the point. Not even close. The doctor is dealing with people’s most precious gift – their health. Go talk to someone who is very sick . . . they would give anything to be well. I cannot imagine the pressure doctors are under to diagnose and treat correctly. The plumber’s life is not like that. People do not lay awake at night praying, hoping, and anxious about plumbing issues.
As far as being a doctor . . . maybe you could – but maybe you could not. You have never gone through medschool or residency. Lots of people thought they could, but around 20% of them drop out. Until you go through it, you do not know. Are you better if you did make it through medschool? No, you are not, but are kings, presidents, senators, princes, etc . . . (I could do this all day) better than you – and yet they have lived, do live, and will live a more comfortable life than you and me. AND FOR SOME OF THEM, it has nothing to do with hard work. It is simply because they were born into a family. Why is that . . . the sovereignty of God. I do not care if they have more or live better. God has been, is, and will be good to me. Just think, those kings and rulers have longed to see what you see and hear what you hear.
I know you went to OU. Did you go on a football scholarship? Because you realize that some of your fellow students went on a full-ride scholarship because they were bigger, stronger, faster, and healthier than you. Should that be the case? Maybe it was because you never applied yourself to working out and staying in shape and perhaps you ate what you wanted instead of what was good for you. Maybe you never spent hours upon hours running and hitting and tackling. Maybe you were like me and you enjoy going to watch the sport, but you never really committed to the sport. Then the problem was your lack of commitment. Perhaps you were very committed and you simply were not born with the gifts to be a collegiate athlete. I have seen many teenagers give their every waking moment to sports and they never make it because they are not gifted enough to make it. Why is that . . . God’s sovereignty. You can either sit around and complain about how they got all the breaks and it isn’t fair while you had to pay for school or you can get in there and do what you can with what God gave you. You may not think it is fair, but you and I do not know God’s plan.
Finally let’s carry your “everyone should make the same” to your football team. My first degree was from LA Tech. Why should Stoops at OU make more than the coach at Tech? Come on Chris, they have the same level job, in Div. I football. They both work hard. As a matter of fact, why should your athletic dept. at OU have more money? Should it all be even? Wait a minute, why should OU get bigger, faster, and stronger players? You have no problem with OU having the biggest and the best athletic department and paying your coach more money so that OU football can dominate and possibly make the BCS championship, but then you want the plumber to make as much as the doctor and if he doesn’t – somehow that is not fair.
You wrote: Socialism is more Christian than capitalism. It promotes equality, which is a Christian virtue.
When did equality (having the same material possessions) become a Christian virtue? I seriously think you made that up. I could understand if you would have stated that generosity is a Christian virtue, but equality?????? Socialism does not promote generosity. People do not become generous because the government takes money from them through taxes. I believe, correct me if I am wrong what you are speaking to is the passage that states “We are neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male or female.” That is true when it comes to our standing in Christ. Show me in scripture where equality in talents, gifts, money, etc . . . is proclaimed by scripture. The Bible speaks of being fair, treating the poor with equity in the courts and we should not take advantage of the poor, but I am at a loss of where it speaks to making all equal in possessions.
The reason I have a problem with Rob Bell is because of what Scripture says. That should take care of that.
AND FINALLY YOUR QUESTIONS:
Why should we be preoccupied with what other people do?
Well Chris, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say give, but don’t get involved. This is part of the problem I have with pro-choice people sayinbg, “It is a woman’s body – and it is none of your business.” One reason I have a say is that my tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood, which is an abortion factory. If my money goes to it – I am now involved. You mentioned that maybe people cannot give money but they give time and energy. That is getting involved in others lives.
I know that part of your view on abortion is based on your emotions after a movie. So when you watch a infomercial that tells you we need to feed the children and it grabs you emotionally, do you call and give money OR are you a good steward and do you find out if the organization gives the majority of the money to the organization, rather than the children. I mean come on – we need to feed the hungry children – so just give. Our government has mismanaged more programs with wasteful spending that it is laughable if it were not so sad. But I am simply to say “Sure, come take my money.” You act as if to question why and what my money is going to is to be unchristian.
Is there a scripture about abolishing slavery or giving women equal rights? No, but Christ did not say you will always have slavery and women will never have equal rights. Just for the record, both of those things (slavery and women under oppression) still occur today and I believe they always will because of sin. We will not get rid of sin and therefore we will not get rid of the effects of our sin. You still have not answered the question, “Are you talking about absolute poverty or relative poverty.”
Why do I see the UK as socialist? It is not pure socialism. It is certainly more socialist than the US. I suggest you do some of your own research. Here is one article that is a summary from the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2400843.stm
What are the differences between communism and socialism? Again, here is another website to help you with your understanding: http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm
You wrote: You did not tell me if you would give up AC and TV so that someone you know could eat for a year, well, would you?
I hope you realize that this is not a hypothetical question. Right now, you and I could give up movies (I know you watch those), cars, TV’s, AC, heat, internet, computers, etc . . . in order to feed others overseas for years. So, before you ask me this question, how far are you willing to go with this? I am not going to say what I am or am not doing. That is not between you and me and those watching this blog. I will simply say that I am giving to the poor and I am submissive to the government.
You wrote: You have yet to show me scholarship that says Jesus was resigned to the fact that there will always be poor.
I have simply showed you scripture that states “You will always have the poor.” I have shown you scripture which addresses how we address the poor at the time Christ returns. You never showed me scripture NOR scholarship that stated man will abolish poverty.
From the Expositor’s Bible Commentary written by D. A. Carson and edited by Frank E. Gaekbelein. And I quote: “Jesus distinguishes between giving to the poor and the extravagance lavished on himself on the grounds that he will not always be there to receive it. His followers will always find poor people to help, they will not always have the incarnate Jesus with them.” So you are suggesting that the passage shows the difference between the fact that Jesus’ physical presence was temporary and poverty is only more temporary . . . HA. Chris, the passage shows that Jesus presence was temporary verses the permanence of poverty. Read in context.
By the way, why would you proclaim that we should give and give and then not reference Deut 15 – The chapter states:
Do not harden your heart against the poor
Lend him sufficient for his need
Do not look grudgingly on your poor brother
Give to him freely
But within Deut 15 there are a couple of things to make note:
There will be no poor among the people of Israel (maybe you are right – No poor) – If only you will strictly obey the voice of the Lord (Oh man – missed it by that much)
So, knowing that they would not strictly obey – God goes on to say what to do with the poor. And then you get to verse 11. “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, “You shall open wide your hand to you brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.” I guess God was not resigned to there always being poor as well.
You wrote: Why does God tell us to help the poor if he made them that way?
Why does God make the crops grow and tell us to harvest it? Why did God raise up Egypt only to crush them in front of the Israelites? Why create man when God knows that man will hate God? I believe God said, “Your ways are not my ways. Your thoughts are not my thoughts.”
1. Does God make some people simply to send them to hell? Romans 9:19-25 -You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
2. Did God ordain Sin? Was sin a surprise for God? Did God have to come up with a plan after Adam and Eve sinned? If God did not know that man would sin, how could Jesus’ death cover our sins because he would not know what they would be? What you believe about God’s foreknowledge is important to this question.
3. If all Governments are what God desires, then I suppose the Nazis were his plan too. Romans 13:1-7 - Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Let’s don’t limit this to the Nazis . . . Were the Egyptians part of God’s plan? Were the Assyrians part of God’s plan? Were the Babylonians part of God’s plan? Were the Persians part of the Plan? What about Rome?
4. Can God change the past? If so, do you pray that he would? Philippians 3:12-16 - Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
The Bible does not speak to changing the past. For me to say anything concerning God’s ability to change the past would be complete speculation and the foolishness of man. If God changed the past would you and I be cognitive of the change? If so, when has it happened? If not, this is pointless. Can God make a rock too big to pick up - another example of a pointless question.
5. What is the point of prayer anyway? It is one form of communication between God and man. All relationships, even between man and God, require communication. It is about confession. It is about praise. It is about bringing requests to our Father. It is about thanksgiving.
Lyle, I need some clarification on your theodicy. It seems like you are trying to maintain that nothing happens without God's permission while also maintaining that men make decisions by which God judges them sinners. You are also suggesting that everything that happens is planned by God perfectly. I am having a hard time understanding how all these can be true yet God is not the author of sin. If everything that happens must necessarily be part of God's perfect plan (otherwise God would not be omnipotent) and sin happens, how does it not follow that God plans and therefore authors sin? You said that man has created sin in his free will, but if man has free will, how can everything be planned by God? How can God plan man's free decisions? Can God also make a square triangle?
Lyle,
Maybe we do need to belabor the point because you just aren't getting it. There is a difference in having a civil conversation while disagreeing and belittling your opponent. Things like "put that seminary education to practice" etc are neither beneficial nor helpful. There is a possibility, I know a tiny, infinitesimal one, that you are wrong. There is a possibility I am wrong. Lets not act like either of us is the mouth piece of God.
Here you are terribly inconsistent. Either everything is according to God's perfect plan or its not. You are saying that this is the best of all possible worlds, to which I would reply, SERIOUSLY?!! An infinite God with a perfect plan couldn't have done better than this?! But if God is allowing for other free agents, if God has made it to where other beings have some choice, that seems much more reasonable. You may not have said God is the author of evil, but if you are going to follow your own reasoning then you must believe it. As Grant already said, either God wills EVERYTHING to happen or he doesn't. I believe he wills somethings to happen. You are right, scripture makes it abundantly clear that God is not the author of evil. But you just said... well, I think you can finish that sentence.
Further, you state clearly that God chooses to make some for destruction, was Paul wrong in 1 Tim when he says "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." So Paul was wrong here right? When the bible speaks of hardening, I have heard it described more as a pot being glazed. It is merely being solidified into a shape that it was already in. Further, the clay analogy can be interpreted to mean that God will design some to have noble purposes and some not to. (plumbers and doctors) or something like that. There are some that think that means hell or heaven, but I don't think the context supports it.
So, you are saying it is ok to be a poor steward if it is your son or daughter? It is not a stretch. The point was that the father was lavishing from his riches to his poor son. The fact is the father continued to give even though the son was a deadbeat good for nothing. That is the same way God's grace is towards us. Or should God wait to lavish his grace until we get jobs, so to speak? Well, God I know you want to give us grace, but the thing is we haven't earned it. I mean, are we always going to be living off of your grace? I mean, we could probably do some good things couldn't we to earn it?
OK I will say it. Women will never be equal in our society because they never have been. Oh, wait, I meant, slavery will always exist in our society because it always has... I am not writing in circles. I have said clearly, it is not likely we will end poverty, but we could. We probably will not because are sinful. Just like I think we could end slavery in the world. Some thought in the United States that the races would never be equal, well they are pretty close. I never said Jesus wasn't speaking truth. Its ok for you to admit that you are not God's mouth piece and everything you say is not necessarily right. You could be right about some things, but you could be wrong.
I know what you believe about the proverbs. That doesn't mean its right. Did God write Ben Sirach? Or Maccabees? Some Christians see them as inspired, who decides what parts God wrote and what parts he didn't?
Proverbs was not written to be taken that way. That was my whole point. Proverbs is general wisdom literature, for the most part if someone works hard then they will have enough to live on. But that is not always true. Obviously I didn't use NAS, because that is not what I really think about that verse. I did not use it in context or anything like that on purpose, to show how it can mess it up to do that. I thought that was obvious. So in the same way, to say everyone is poor because God has caused it is not a good way to think about it.
Why do I doubt the facts... well, you showed that some verses contradict others. Part of Job says clearly that Satan took away from Job. Job says with his own mouth that God took away. We can't seriously take every speech by someone in the bible as truth can we? Like when Cain said he didn't know where Abel was, he must not have known right? Or when the serpent lies, it must be the truth right? Not everything said by a character in the scripture is truth, so if you have a discrepancy, you take as authoritative the narrative. Which, pretty clearly to me, seemed to indicate that Satan had worked the evil.
I think you already have answered this question. God causes everything because it is his perfect plan. I would say that God has set up rules in the world, and allows things to play out. He does intervene, but rarely. One of my profs would say God is in charge but not in control. God does not micromanage every event in the world. Otherwise the parts about people having choice in the scriptures would just be a facade. How can you say God is good if he continually causes evil? How is God just if he saves those who have done nothing to earn it?
Since you refuse to answer the actual question about the doctor and the plumber, but continually add facts to change the scenario, lets try another scenario. Two doctors. Each the same age and at the same time in their careers. Each equally capable. One, however, is unscrupulous and does many bad things that end up earning him a promotion. The other does the right thing and ends up in a crappy practice somewhere. The one is making millions per year, the other barely scraping by, (what with malpractice student loans, etc, I'm amazed doctors get to eat). So you would say that since one makes more money, he deserves it more. When in reality, one has clearly been promoted because he deserves it less. Why is that right? But that is exactly what happens in a free market. Those who are the most cut throat get ahead and win. The noble and honest lose.
Well your friend must be right. She agrees with you. Plumbers may be under less pressure, but their job is no less important. Do you realize how many diseases we prevent by having good sewage and sanitation? Our life expectancy is probably twice that of countries that are less developed. We send doctors there, but many times they contract simple diseases that kill them because of a lack of drinking water. Because their sewage is not properly taken care of.
You don't know I went to OU, because I didn't. Again, we are not talking about what actually works in the world. We agree that capitalism is a better real world system. Socialism is closer to the heart of teh Christian message though. Do people deserve to go on full scholarship because they are stronger than me? No. I worked just as hard at being smart in high school. Just because the free market says football is more valuable, I think you and I both know that the most important people in our country are the scientists, doctors and people that spend their time working on solutions to real world problems. But they don't make the salaries NFL players do. That is a great world right?
In the real world, the OU athletic department is worth more money. In an ideal world, they wouldn't be. They would still be people doing their work as hard as they can.
I just think that some people should not be throwing away pounds and pounds of food while people in the same town go hungry. Stupid I know. I am not saying we should push for homogeneous people, I am saying everyone should have the same amount of money. I am at a loss in the bible where it says that some deserve to be able to waste more food than others eat. I do see the heart of much of the bible concerned with helping the poor. It seems to me then that the authors would think that having no more poor would be a good thing. (AGAIN, PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE) I just don't see how you can read the prophets and see an everyman for himself, do whatever it takes to get ahead mentality.
Ha. Then the reason I have a problem with John Piper is because of what scripture says.
You act like I formed my entire opinion of abortion on a movie. Sure it influenced me some, but thats not such a bad thing. I didn't say it was wrong to question where your money went. I just said I don't see anywhere in the bible where it says "give to people unless you are convinced that they aren't helping themselves." Show me if I missed it. Of course our government has messed it up, but that doesn't mean they won't get it right at some point. My point is it seems like you are awfully preoccupied with worrying about what people do with your money, God just says we are to give.
Of course they occur, but in the United States slavery is abolished. Women are closer to having equal rights than in the history of the world. Seems like some effects of sin can be abolished. Paul speaks of slavery very clearly as if it will always be around. He must have thought it would be bad to try to get rid of it right? I don't think so. Just because you think Jesus was saying there would always be poor does not mean he thought we should stop worrying about it. And later you prove my point exactly, In Deut 15 you say "there will be no poor among the people of Israel if only you will strictly obey the voice of the Lord." So it is possible! Which is why every commentary I have read on it has said this is not Jesus resigned to the fact, but pointing to the people's disobedience!
The UK is not pure socialism. So to call it a socialist country is a gross oversimplification. Thanks.
I don't want a website. I can research the web too. I asked for your explanation. In my view, there isn't much economic difference between communism and socialism.
I think we should go as far as it takes. What did Jesus tell the rich young man? Its a hard truth, but one I think we have to face.
I think you showed the scripture that said we could abolish poverty. If we are obedient. Pretty clear to me.
Carson (though he is ridiculous about a lot of things) is not saying poverty is good or something we should be resigned to. He is saying it is a fact. I have said, I doubt we will overcome it, but I think we could. Dunno how else to say that. And I think you meant "versus." And, since you showed the context of Jesus' quote from Deut, it does say you will have no poor if you obey. Seems pretty clear.
We are called to harvest because that is our role in that, God allowed Egypt to choose to obey or not, God does not desire man to hate him, but allows the chance, God tells us to help the poor because our disobedience has caused poverty.
1. What about the 1 tim 2 verse?
2. Does God have to know our specific sins in order to cover them? Didn't know God was limited in that way.
3. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would disagree with you. God allowed these governments to choose to be evil. He did not design them thus.
4. That Philippians passage has nothing to do with this. It is an impossible question, but not pointless. If God changes the future to his will, or the present, if God is outside time, why couldn't he change the past? But if he can, then how do we trust what he says? How do we know he really said it?
5. Why bring requests to God if he has already decided what he will do? Can it make a difference? Did God already knwo what you would pray?
There comes a point in time that the conversation is no longer profitable. I believe we have reached that point. I am OK with those who do not believe the Bible debating from the point of view that you have taken on many issues, but it is surprising to see a seminary graduate making some of the statements that you make. I will attempt to clarify and then, I will be done. The conflict between what you and I believe is not about economic systems or helping the poor. The problem is that your belief is grounded in a very small view of God and a very large view of man. I am the polar opposite. The more I know about man, the less I think of him and the more I know about God . . . I am absolutely blown away by Him.
Where you and I mostly disagree is that you believe that God’s word is all up for any interpretation and manipulation to fit your worldview. I simply do not. I believe that my worldview must change in order to be in line with the word of God. When my worldview comes in conflict with God’s word, I must change. You wrote: “You are saying that this is the best of all possible worlds, to which I would reply SERIOUSLY?!! An Infinite God with a perfect plan couldn’t have done better than this?!” Here is exactly what I am saying. God is infinite. God’s plan is perfect. This is the world is the best of all possible worlds. That should take care of any ambiguity.
Chris, you look at this world and in your short time – you think God could have done better based upon your extremely narrow, limited, uninformed, and selfish viewpoint. That is not a put down to you. I also have this narrow, limited, uninformed, and selfish viewpoint, but I do not question the one who knows best – God. I accept that no matter good or evil – God is in control and he always has been. What is your faith in? If God could have done better and this is simply the best he could do – what do you think about God’s provision for salvation? Why should we trust salvation if God was just doing the best he could? Why not believe that God could have done better concerning that issue? If God created, and then he had to come up with a plan for our sin (because he didn’t know it was coming) then my question is valid concerning knowing about future sin. How do you know that Jesus paid the correct price for our sin if God has no idea what we are going to do? If He has no idea what evils we are going to partake of? Of course you simply say – I am limiting God, while you have limited his omnipotence, his omniscience, and his omnipresence not to mention God is no longer perfect – but just the best He can be or do. I wonder . . . as a pastor do you stand before your congregation and tell them where God has been in error based upon your incredibly wise judgment?
Let me address a few things you mentioned in your last post.
Now, you question if the Christian Bible is wholly God’s word. Why not the apocrypha or Ben Sirach? Well, as you mentioned Chris, you are a big boy – you do your own research concerning the canon of scripture. Let me see if I can clear up any ambiguity concerning where I stand on this issue. I believe that the Christian Bible is fully inspired and written by God. It is God breathed. I not only believe God wrote it, He has/is preserving it through the ages. I am sure that you do not agree with that statement based upon what you have written. You asked if God could change the past and now you write if He can . . . “How do we trust what he says? How do we know he really said it?” So you admit your question is impossible, but your point is doubt God because he could lie and deceive us???? Interesting Chris. Again, if you would simply look at scripture you would know that is impossible for God to lie because God is truth. God cannot do anything but truth. Why would I be worried about the past? Paul isn’t. Paul is aware of the past, but I see nowhere in scripture people praying that the past would be changed. Why should I worry or even wonder if God could change the past? Am I limiting God again????
Let look at your view of Romans 9: You wrote: “The clay analogy can be interpreted to mean that God will design some to have noble purposes and some not to (plumbers and doctors) or something like that. There are some that think that means hell or heaven, but I don’t think the context supports it.”
Chris, do you actually read what you are writing? If you believe this – your whole argument falls apart. WOW, now according to you, God does give some noble purposes (doctors) and some not (plumbers) but you are arguing that these should be the same in nobility (same value and same money). That is what I call circular logic. The noble doctor, according to you, should be paid the same as the common plumber – because you wrote: “I am just saying, everyone is equal and deserves to be able to have the same type of life.” You also did not think it is fair that the “noble” live better than the common – but then you believe that God makes vessels noble and common based upon a career - Unbelievable.
You wrote: “There are some that think that (Romans 9) means hell or heaven, but I don't think the context supports it.” In other words, you don’t believe the context supports the idea that God creates some for destruction (hell). Well, let’s look at the context and your idea that honor and dishonorable are just doctors and plumbers respectively.
The passage asked the question if the potter has the right make some vessels for honorable use and other vessels for dishonorable use in Romans 9:21 – so let’s look at the context – the passage – not just the verse.
Romans 9:19-23 – You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored us and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
So, let’s look at what you think vs. what scripture says.
Chris:
Vessels of dishonorable use = Vessels of wrath = Plumber
Vessels of honorable use = Vessels of mercy = Doctor
The Bible:
Vessels of dishonorable use = vessels of wrath = God’s destruction = God gets glory
Vessels of honorable use = vessels of mercy = God’s deliverance = God gets glory.
Pharaoh = no mercy = destroyed = vessel of wrath = vessel dishonorable use = God gets glory
Moses = mercy = used by God = vessel of honorable use = God gets glory
Now, in verse 17 - For the scripture says to Pharaoh – “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Is Pharaoh going to question God about how and why he was created? According to Romans 9:20-21 – Pharaoh has no right. So was Pharaoh made for honorable use Chris? You have been arguing for equality – so why are you now saying that the doctor is honorable and the plumber is not. If the doctor is honorable, based upon wealth, lifestyle, intelligence, etc . . . surely you would agree that Pharaoh is also a vessel of honorable use. It would be hard to argue otherwise. He lived better than any doctor – more wealth, power, influence . . . You can’t say he was honorable vessel because he brought honor to God, because your statement - “The clay analogy can be interpreted to mean that God will design some to have noble purposes and some not to (plumbers and doctors) or something like that” is not contingent on God’s glory.
Let’s continue to use your logic and look at the plumber. According to you God makes some vessels for dishonorable use – the plumber. Now the Pharaoh (I believe another vessel for dishonorable use or wrath) did not receive God’s mercy. So according to you, God shows his wrath by making vessels of wrath (dishonorable use) – Plumbers. God shows his wrath by making plumbers???? But Chris, you said plumbers were honorable . . . you know they are designing septic systems and sewage systems that have doubled our life expectancy. By the way – plumbers did not design these things . . . that would be engineers. You might want to rethink all of this.
Concerning God’s “glazing of Pharaoh’s heart:
Is the hardening just a glaze? Did God just make the hard heart . . . harder? 1. Before Pharaoh hardened his heart – God did it. So we know it wasn’t just God’s glaze on top of Pharaoh’s glaze. 2. God raised him up in order to show the world God’s power. So let’s look at your logic verse the wisdom of God.
Chris’ logic:
Pharaoh is born (just random because according to Chris, God rarely intervenes in this world)
Pharaoh hates the Israelites just because he does (there were too many – his country could be taken over)
God sees that Pharaoh hates Israel and joins in and hardens his heart (glazes it because this is one of those rare chances to intervene and act now that he has seen what man is doing)
Now God can crush Pharaoh (another rare intervention) to show the world his power.
Bible:
God’s word shows a much bigger picture. Before Isaac is born Abraham is given a promise – again, just one of those rare, rare times that God gets involved. Now is Pharaoh born yet???? Not even close. This is several generations before Pharaoh shows up. So at this point, God cannot glaze Pharaoh’s heart – Pharaoh doesn’t exist yet. So how can God know about building up and crushing Egypt? How can God plan to glaze something, when Pharaoh doesn’t exist yet and God has got to wait to see the free choices of Pharaoh? How does he know??? Maybe Pharaoh will like the Israelites. God will just have to wait and see what happens because He rarely gets involved and He needs to see what man does. Wait, , , , , , let’s go back to Genesis 15:13 – “Then the Lord said to Abraham, ‘Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.’”
So, either God waited and reacted to the free choices of Pharaoh or God had a plan and he is in control in order to bring about His good and perfect will. Again . . . your 25 years or the eternal wisdom of God???? Take your pick. So, lots more questions.
Did God know that Pharaoh would hate the Israelites? If he didn’t, how did God know about the 400 years? If he did, it appears that the slavery and Pharaoh’s hard heart was in was in God’s plan (plus Romans 9 states that Pharaoh was raised for this purpose).
If God knew about Pharaoh’s heart, did he know about Adam and Eve’s heart before they would sin?
If the answer is NO – then - If God knew about Pharaoh’s heart, why didn’t he know about Adam and Eve’s heart?
If the answer is YES - If God knew about Adam and Eve’s heart, did he plan for it?
If God knew that sin was going to occur, why didn’t God do something different? You can’t say “He did the best he could with what he had to work with.” God had nothing to work with.
If God could have done better, then why didn’t he? Was He not powerful enough?
So really the question is Chris, Was God not powerful enough (Omnipotent) to design a better universe or did God not know what was coming down the pike (Omniscient) so that he could design something better?
Lets look at what started this whole thing – the poverty. Why do we have poverty, slavery, inequality of women . . . go down the list . . . ? It is because of sin. You most certainly are writing in circles if you believe that we will never get rid of sin, but somehow we will get rid of the effects of sin. That is like saying that we can get rid of wet, but not get rid of water. Do you really believe that slavery is gone in America? Turn on the TV and you will hear about mail-order brides that are sex slaves here in the United States. Oh that’s right . . . we have laws against slavery so it is gone, but the reality is . . . it still exists. Do some research about the sex slave trade in South America and Mexico. That speaks to both women’s rights and slavery. That does not even begin to talk about slavery that still exists all over the world. Do you really think that just because women can drive cars, work as CEO’s, and vote we have even come close to dealing with inequality? Look around the world . . . we have not even made a dent. As long as there is sin, and there will be sin until Christ returns, man will never (I would like to emphasize that word “never”) usher in utopia (By the way, you want to know the difference between socialism and communism – it is the word utopia). But, because you have such a high view of man – you really think we have a chance to do this apart from Christ’s return.
Let me give you another example: I was debating with an atheist and she truly believes that one day we would rid our world of disease. Her faith is also in man and science. I know many people in medicine and when talking about a simple virus they have told me that a conservative number of viruses that we know of in the world is probably over 250,000. These are just ones that we know of. We have yet to cure even 1. These viruses are constantly mutating, so that even if we cure 1, it can change and become something that we cannot cure. This woman truly believed that man would usher in a time where disease would no longer exist. Disease and death is the result of sin. We will never bring that time about as long as there is sin. You and the atheist are arguing for the same thing. It simply is not going to happen. That doesn’t mean that we do not attempt to cure disease and make people’s lives better, but we will never rid this planet of disease because it is a result of sin.
You wrote: “God has set up rules in the world, and allows things to play out. He does intervene, but rarely. God does not micromanage every event in the world.” You wrote that a professor said: “God is in charge, but not in control.” That sounds so wise and yet; it is so wrong. Your professor either never read the Bible or he simply does not believe it. The Bible states that God is continually involved with all created things and I believe that. God sustains and cooperates with His creation and directs them in order to fulfill His purpose. I believe you come very close to a deist point of view. I do not see God standing off as Bette Midler sang – “From A Distance.” Again, let’s look at Scripture.
Hebrews 1:3 – “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” – So everything is sustained by God’s word. The moment Jesus does not sustain – everything goes away. There is no “just setting things in motion and naturally things will continue.” The Greek word here is “pherō” (to carry or bear). It is actually more than just sustaining, because it gives the impression of an active purposeful control over the thing being carried or sustained.
Colossians 1:17 – “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Again, without God being involved . . . all things fall apart. He is holding all things together and this is again confirmed in 2 Peter 3:7 – “But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.” God is actively keeping the universe. There is no doubt that this entire universe ceases to exist without God sustaining it.
Perhaps you and your professor were talking about nature simply does what it does. You know, nature simply works the way God made it work, but the Bible tells us that nature doesn’t just work by itself. God steps in and makes nature work. That would be concurrence. Concurrence is God cooperating with His creation. Ephesians 1:11 certainly tells us “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” “All things” . . . what part of God’s creation is left out of “all things.”
The very things that you and I think are just “natural” simply are NOT just that. Let me give you an example. We know that the grass in our yards need sunlight, soil, water, and then it will grow. AND YET – Psalm 104:14 (cited below) A meteorologist can tell you all the things that it takes to make a storm and all that stuff is true, BUT scripture tells us that GOD does all these things. Let’s look at scripture again:
Psalm 148:7-8 - 7Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps,
8fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!
Job 37:5-13 - 5God thunders wondrously with his voice;
he does great things that we cannot comprehend.
6For to the snow he says, 'Fall on the earth,'
likewise to the downpour, his mighty downpour.
7He seals up the hand of every man,
that all men whom he made may know it.
8Then the beasts go into their lairs,
and remain in their dens.
9From its chamber comes the whirlwind,
and cold from the scattering winds.
10By the breath of God ice is given,
and the broad waters are frozen fast.
11He loads the thick cloud with moisture;
the clouds scatter his lightning.
12They turn around and around by his guidance,
to accomplish all that he commands them
on the face of the habitable world.
13Whether for correction or for his land
or for love, he causes it to happen.
Psalm 104:14 - 14You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man’s heart.
I am not going to paste all of Job 38, but read it and you will read more of the same.
Why did Jesus tell us to pray – “Give us this day our daily bread?” Wouldn’t God have to be involved daily to give us our daily bread? If God rarely intervenes, why do you pray? Do you pray often? Why? Are you just hoping for one of those rare occasions?
You don’t believe God is involved in the mundane things of life. What is more mundane than people gambling? It is just rolling the dice. Proverbs 16:33 - The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
God controls it all. I can give your more scripture, but it does not matter because you do not believe it to be all true. I guess somehow I have misrepresented all of these passages. Here is the choice as I see it. I can either believe in all of scripture or I can believe mine, yours, or your professor’s ways, thoughts, or opinions. No matter what our age, we are but a vapor. Our view is 100% selfish and simply one view of a planet of 6.5 billion. You might think that it is my opinion verses your professor’s opinion. I do not see it that way. I see it as your professor’s foolishness verses God’s wisdom. I choose to believe in the eternal wisdom of God and what He has written in His Word.
Lastly, when it comes to salvation – do you pray that your friends and others around you get saved???? Why? God rarely intervenes according to you. It seems to me that you would be wasting your time hoping for one of those rare interventions when you believe salvation is totally up to man. Know this for sure, salvation is ALWAYS because of God’s initiative.
You wrote: “Those who are the most cut throat get ahead and win. The noble and honest lose.” Now if you want to see an observation that is untrue – you just gave us one. You just gave us a false observation from a very limited and young view point that is incredibly easy to disprove. I feel like if I use scripture, it does no good because you do not believe it, but here it goes. God’s word plainly states: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” So the verse speaks to the fact that the unjust will have good crops and money just like the just. BUT, the just will also have good crops and money like the unjust. So the noble and honest lose??? According to you the noble lose while the cut throat get ahead. Noah, Joseph, Job, King David, Solomon, Daniel – yep, you are right . . . nothing but a bunch of losers. You can’t give me names of believers who are wealthy??? Where is all the money that is being donated by Christians coming from? Ultimately, it is the noble and honest that are believers (again, I know that all sin) which will inherit the kingdom of God. So, do the cut throat win? In the end, none of them do. Is living this life without God winning? The king and rulers long to see what you see. They long to hear what you hear. We have a treasure that is beyond any that will be obtained in this life. If you do not believe that . . . I am truly sorry for you.
Good night – the plumber and doctor just cannot get a break. You are the one who brought in the limitations of their minds with these two – not me. Now you want to forget the plumber and talk about the two doctors – fine. So, you know in your brief 25 year history, and in reality, your 7 year history as an adult, that the “unscrupulous doctor makes millions while the honest doctor scrapes by.” First of all, I read your whining (yep – I said it) about having to wait for a doctor. You assume that the doctor just doesn’t care to be on time and in reality you know nothing about that situation or many others. Again, we have a very selfish and limited view of the world. I am not naïve. I am sure there are doctors that are in it for the money and they care nothing about the people they serve. BUT, I also know there are some very good doctors who serve people with the heart of a minister. You waited 30 minutes WOW. My wife has waited 4 hours to meet with a great doctor who wasn’t late because he was a jerk. I remember her calling me and she was trying to deal with a sick kid and spending half the day in the waiting room. She was certainly frustrated and at wits end, until she got called in and found out the reason she had to wait so long. The doctor was also a personal friend and he explained that he had to drive to the hospital for a pediatric emergency. So here is a man, who leaves his practice to take care of a child in a life or death situation, and we were frustrated because it took up some more of our time. This doctor owned his own practice and made a lot of money. He was a great doctor. Right up to the moment a disease took his life – he served others. He was never a loser in life. But according to you – “the noble and honest lose and this is exactly what happens in the free market system.” You really ought to get out more. If the noble and honest lose – again, why do we have all these rich Christians giving to charity? Your logic is a direct contradiction to the Bible and to reality. Perhaps you had to wait because your doctor was taking a nap when you arrived at the doctor’s office. Was it because he was just lazy or was it because he got called in at 3:30 in the morning for an emergency while you were at home sleeping?
Yes, your Prodigal Son analogy is a stretch. The parable was not addressing stewardship or charitable giving – but somehow I am limiting God by saying that. So I disagree in attempting to address an issue that Jesus was not addressing in this particular parable, but for your sake, I will address what you wrote. I do agree (WOW) with you that the parable was teaching what God's relationship to us is like. After that statement, we part ways. The money that the father gave the son was due to the son. It was due after the father died, but it was due him. You might want to take into account that the son had been working for the father his entire life as well. The difference with us and God is that God the Father owes us nothing. Nothing is due us. We do not deserve to take our next breath, and yet he gives it to us. The father gave the son the money early and the son goes off and spends it. Again, if you simply mean that charity is giving to our children – then I know lots of charitable people. You wrote: “The father continued to give even though the son was a deadbeat good for nothing.” That is absolutely incorrect. First, the son had been working for the father his whole life. Secondly, the father did not find the son and continue to give him wealth while he was living the party life. The son returned and was repentant. The father gave “again” if you want to see it that way, after the son changed his ways. It was not a continual giving. The Father did not leave to make sure the son had enough money to continue his foolish lifestyle or make sure he was doing alright. You fail to keep that point in mind. Read the rest of the parable as far as “continuing to give to the deadbeat son:”
1. The older son is jealous and wants to know why the father has given his son a goat for a party. The party was to celebrate a returning repentant son – it was not cash to continue a foolish lifestyle.
2. The father states that all he has now belongs to the older son – not the younger. The younger son does not have a claim to any of it. Did the younger son get any of it – we do not know. The parable does not tell us and to state anything else is speculation.
3. It was a celebration – not perpetual welfare
Sorry about thinking you went to OU. I made an assumption. My bad, but you miss the point. The point is that God is sovereign. He decided to give some the gift to perform at the colligate level and some he did not. It is God’s sovereign choice. Are you into upwards college football??? You know – every team a winner. Your thinking is backwards. You think that Stoops wins games because he is paid more. The reality is that Stoops gets paid more because he wins games. You think the dollar drives the inequality. The reality is that the inequality drives the dollar. Even if you gave all the coaches the same salary, there would be winners and losers, because some are more gifted. Stoops would win more and more would cheer and more would show up and we have the same cycle. You cannot put his giftedness upon the American dollar. OU hired him because he was a good coach even before he had all the money. It because he has been gifted by God to coach.
Concerning Proverbs: You think that I belittle you because you say (emphasis on say) now that you meant to misrepresent Proverbs 13:4. That is not what you did. Do you really think you had to prove to me that scripture could be taken out of context? You wrote: “Are you telling me that if I followed the proverbs, things would work out exactly as they say? Proverbs 13.4 "the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied." Really?! You will never want for anything if you are diligent? I know some medschool students who would disagree.” You were attempting to prove that this passage has not proved to be right throughout history. You did not read it in context because the verse has nothing to do with “wanting for anything” when it comes to material possessions or stature in this world. The Proverb is correct and has proven to be throughout history.
Are the passages in Job inconsistent – not even close. Satan incites God to get involved. Gosh – another rare case of God intervening. When it comes to taking Job’s health – Why did Satan have to ask God to do it? I will tell you why. Satan does not have the power nor the authority to do it himself. He must get it from God. So, as the passages states – Job receives blessing from God and he receives evil. Job would not give Satan the ultimate causality because Satan is also under God’s control. God knows what he is doing. I have faith in that.
What it boils down to is that I have what is called a more Calvinistic view of God and I would say that you have a more Armenian view – but that would be incorrect. An Armenian would not doubt the inerrancy of Scripture. We would see it differently, but we would not doubt the author – God. I can give you passage after passage that speaks to God not only knowing the future, but directing it to conform to His will, but if I did that – you simply do not believe the Bible to be wholly true.
It is amazing that you are so impressed with yourself that at the ripe age of 25 that you question if this is the best that God could do. I am not sure that I have ever heard or read a more egotistical statement from a Christian questioning God’s design or plan. At least the atheist just doesn’t believe in God. You state you believe in him and then question his judgment. Wow. Let me refer to Job one more time. I do not know what you have experienced or what you have seen in this life, but after all that happened to Job, his friends and his wife sat around and talked about why this happened and what should be the response of Job – God then shows up on the scene. One thing to make note of – God doesn’t even address Job’s situation. God simply tells Job – This is who I am and you (man) have no idea of all that I do and why I do it.
To address some of your questions:
You asked why bring request to God if he has already decided what he will do???? Why bring request to God if he rarely intervenes??? Yes – God knows what I am going to pray. David stated that God knew his thoughts and the words before they were on his tongue – Oh Yeah, that is in Psalms and we cannot base theology on that book.
Again – it is you who are limiting God – It is amazing that you have to ask me if God knows what I am going to pray. God is omniscient. God cannot not know everything.
You really want to talk about the Nazis again? You never answered about the Egyptians Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Rome . . .
I guess I will help you out. Let’s don’t single out the Nazis. Do you really think Hitler’s Germany was any crueler than those leaders and nations? I mean, did these pagan nations just decide to invade and rule over Israel or did God plan it? Well, according to you – God rarely intervenes so it must have been these cruel leaders. I think I have already covered the issue of the Egyptians.
You might remember that Nehemiah 9 is a brief history of Israel. Even in this brief history look at what God write through Nehemiah.
Nehemiah 9:27a – Therefore you gave them (Israel) into the hand of their enemies who made them suffer.
Nehemiah 9:28 – But after they had rest they did evil again before you and you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies so that they had dominion over them (Israel)
Isaiah 9 – God raises up adversaries (the Syrians and the Philistines) and then the passage states – Isaiah 9:13 – The people did not turn to him who struck them.
Isaiah 10 – God describes Assyria as “the rod of my anger.”
Jeremiah 20:4b-5 – And I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon. He shall carry them captive to Babylon and shall strike them down with the sword. Moreover, I will give all the wealth of the city, all its gains, all its prized belongings, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah into the hand of their enemies who shall plunder them and seize them and carry them to Babylon (Doesn’t seem like equal distribution to me)
Daniel 1:1-1 – In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand with some of the vessels of the house of God.
That should take care of Assyria and Babylon – if you need more passages . . . no problem. What about Persia. Well, you might want to ask Belshazzar about that. The hand writing was on the wall and then that very night, Darius the Mede comes in and takes over as the world power. Man, God just keeps on intervening. Those “rare” occurrences just seem to be all the time.
What about Rome – Jesus told Pilate very clearly that Pilate has no authority over Him except that God gives it to him. So what Jesus wrong or did God give Pilate authority and set up Rome to be the world power. Now remember this would be the government that gave us Nero. Hitler didn’t have anything on this guy.
Lastly, let’s go back to Daniel 2. Blessed be the name of God forever and ever to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;
So what about Dietrich Bonheoffer? Would he disagree with me? I don’t think so.
1. Did Dietrich believe in God’s word – absolutely he did. He believed Romans 13. All authorities have been instituted by God.
2. God designed Pharaoh for destruction and I have no problem believing the same for Hitler.
You believe that Bonheoffer would have disagreed with me because he attempted to kill Hitler. His decision is a great study in ethics. I would like to think I would have made the same choice, but was it right or not??? First of all it is clear that God raised up Egypt who did incredibly cruel things to the Israelites. It is clear that God gave authority to Rome who killed all the Israelite males under 2. That sounds incredibly cruel to me. So Hitler has no trump card on cruelty. God instituted all authorities and tells us to be submissive, but God commands us not to murder – and yet, I would hope to do the same as Bonheoffer . . . Why?
There is no authority except from God. Scripture also states for rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Let’s put this in context. This is written by Paul, who is under Roman rule (the government which put Christ to death) and the government that is ruling over God’s people. Back to Hitler, he was put into power by God and then he used his authority to go against the authority of God (he punished good and murdered). This is no different than the authority God most certainly put in place in the Bible. When the lower authority (the government) goes against the higher authority (God) the people of God should go against the lower authority and be in line with the upper authority. In Bonheoffer’s case, being in line with the upper authority meant that he went against a law of the upper authority – thou shall not murder. That is where the question of “Did Bonheoffer act in a way that was correct” comes into play. I could explain why I believe Bonheoffer acted properly, but I do not think that is the issue here. I believed that God raised up Hitler and that God destroyed Hitler as was according to His perfect will and plan.
Grant, I will be more than happy to answer your questions if you truly want to know, but there are two things that must be agreed upon:
1. God is beyond what you and I can describe or understand. Scripture tells us that - which leads to the second agreement:
2. You must believe scripture. If you doubt that it is God’s word – through and through – then it is pointless, because all I am going to rely upon the wisdom of God through His word.
There comes a point in time that the conversation is no longer profitable. I believe we have reached that point. I am OK with those who do not believe the Bible debating from the point of view that you have taken on many issues, but it is surprising to see a seminary graduate making some of the statements that you make. I will attempt to clarify and then, I will be done. The conflict between what you and I believe is not about economic systems or helping the poor. The problem is that your belief is grounded in a very small view of God and a very large view of man. I am the polar opposite. The more I know about man, the less I think of him and the more I know about God . . . I am absolutely blown away by Him.
Where you and I mostly disagree is that you believe that God’s word is all up for any interpretation and manipulation to fit your worldview. I simply do not. I believe that my worldview must change in order to be in line with the word of God. When my worldview comes in conflict with God’s word, I must change. You wrote: “You are saying that this is the best of all possible worlds, to which I would reply SERIOUSLY?!! An Infinite God with a perfect plan couldn’t have done better than this?!” Here is exactly what I am saying. God is infinite. God’s plan is perfect. This is the world is the best of all possible worlds. That should take care of any ambiguity.
Chris, you look at this world and in your short time – you think God could have done better based upon your extremely narrow, limited, uninformed, and selfish viewpoint. That is not a put down to you. I also have this narrow, limited, uninformed, and selfish viewpoint, but I do not question the one who knows best – God. I accept that no matter good or evil – God is in control and he always has been. What is your faith in? If God could have done better and this is simply the best he could do – what do you think about God’s provision for salvation? Why should we trust salvation if God was just doing the best he could? Why not believe that God could have done better concerning that issue? If God created, and then he had to come up with a plan for our sin (because he didn’t know it was coming) then my question is valid concerning knowing about future sin. How do you know that Jesus paid the correct price for our sin if God has no idea what we are going to do? If He has no idea what evils we are going to partake of? Of course you simply say – I am limiting God, while you have limited his omnipotence, his omniscience, and his omnipresence not to mention God is no longer perfect – but just the best He can be or do. I wonder . . . as a pastor do you stand before your congregation and tell them where God has been in error based upon your incredibly wise judgment?
Let me address a few things you mentioned in your last post.
Now, you question if the Christian Bible is wholly God’s word. Why not the apocrypha or Ben Sirach? Well, as you mentioned Chris, you are a big boy – you do your own research concerning the canon of scripture. Let me see if I can clear up any ambiguity concerning where I stand on this issue. I believe that the Christian Bible is fully inspired and written by God. It is God breathed. I not only believe God wrote it, He has/is preserving it through the ages. I am sure that you do not agree with that statement based upon what you have written. You asked if God could change the past and now you write if He can . . . “How do we trust what he says? How do we know he really said it?” So you admit your question is impossible, but your point is doubt God because he could lie and deceive us???? Interesting Chris. Again, if you would simply look at scripture you would know that is impossible for God to lie because God is truth. God cannot do anything but truth. Why would I be worried about the past? Paul isn’t. Paul is aware of the past, but I see nowhere in scripture people praying that the past would be changed. Why should I worry or even wonder if God could change the past? Am I limiting God again????
Let look at your view of Romans 9: You wrote: “The clay analogy can be interpreted to mean that God will design some to have noble purposes and some not to (plumbers and doctors) or something like that. There are some that think that means hell or heaven, but I don’t think the context supports it.”
Chris, do you actually read what you are writing? If you believe this – your whole argument falls apart. WOW, now according to you, God does give some noble purposes (doctors) and some not (plumbers) but you are arguing that these should be the same in nobility (same value and same money). That is what I call circular logic. The noble doctor, according to you, should be paid the same as the common plumber – because you wrote: “I am just saying, everyone is equal and deserves to be able to have the same type of life.” You also did not think it is fair that the “noble” live better than the common – but then you believe that God makes vessels noble and common based upon a career - Unbelievable.
You wrote: “There are some that think that (Romans 9) means hell or heaven, but I don't think the context supports it.” In other words, you don’t believe the context supports the idea that God creates some for destruction (hell). Well, let’s look at the context and your idea that honor and dishonorable are just doctors and plumbers respectively.
The passage asked the question if the potter has the right make some vessels for honorable use and other vessels for dishonorable use in Romans 9:21 – so let’s look at the context – the passage – not just the verse.
Romans 9:19-23 – You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored us and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
So, let’s look at what you think vs. what scripture says.
Chris:
Vessels of dishonorable use = Vessels of wrath = Plumber
Vessels of honorable use = Vessels of mercy = Doctor
The Bible:
Vessels of dishonorable use = vessels of wrath = God’s destruction = God gets glory
Vessels of honorable use = vessels of mercy = God’s deliverance = God gets glory.
Pharaoh = no mercy = destroyed = vessel of wrath = vessel dishonorable use = God gets glory
Moses = mercy = used by God = vessel of honorable use = God gets glory
Now, in verse 17 - For the scripture says to Pharaoh – “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Is Pharaoh going to question God about how and why he was created? According to Romans 9:20-21 – Pharaoh has no right. So was Pharaoh made for honorable use Chris? You have been arguing for equality – so why are you now saying that the doctor is honorable and the plumber is not. If the doctor is honorable, based upon wealth, lifestyle, intelligence, etc . . . surely you would agree that Pharaoh is also a vessel of honorable use. It would be hard to argue otherwise. He lived better than any doctor – more wealth, power, influence . . . You can’t say he was honorable vessel because he brought honor to God, because your statement - “The clay analogy can be interpreted to mean that God will design some to have noble purposes and some not to (plumbers and doctors) or something like that” is not contingent on God’s glory.
Let’s continue to use your logic and look at the plumber. According to you God makes some vessels for dishonorable use – the plumber. Now the Pharaoh (I believe another vessel for dishonorable use or wrath) did not receive God’s mercy. So according to you, God shows his wrath by making vessels of wrath (dishonorable use) – Plumbers. God shows his wrath by making plumbers???? But Chris, you said plumbers were honorable . . . you know they are designing septic systems and sewage systems that have doubled our life expectancy. By the way – plumbers did not design these things . . . that would be engineers. You might want to rethink all of this.
Concerning God’s “glazing of Pharaoh’s heart:
Is the hardening just a glaze? Did God just make the hard heart . . . harder? 1. Before Pharaoh hardened his heart – God did it. So we know it wasn’t just God’s glaze on top of Pharaoh’s glaze. 2. God raised him up in order to show the world God’s power. So let’s look at your logic verse the wisdom of God.
Chris’ logic:
Pharaoh is born (just random because according to Chris, God rarely intervenes in this world)
Pharaoh hates the Israelites just because he does (there were too many – his country could be taken over)
God sees that Pharaoh hates Israel and joins in and hardens his heart (glazes it because this is one of those rare chances to intervene and act now that he has seen what man is doing)
Now God can crush Pharaoh (another rare intervention) to show the world his power.
Bible:
God’s word shows a much bigger picture. Before Isaac is born Abraham is given a promise – again, just one of those rare, rare times that God gets involved. Now is Pharaoh born yet???? Not even close. This is several generations before Pharaoh shows up. So at this point, God cannot glaze Pharaoh’s heart – Pharaoh doesn’t exist yet. So how can God know about building up and crushing Egypt? How can God plan to glaze something, when Pharaoh doesn’t exist yet and God has got to wait to see the free choices of Pharaoh? How does he know??? Maybe Pharaoh will like the Israelites. God will just have to wait and see what happens because He rarely gets involved and He needs to see what man does. Wait, , , , , , let’s go back to Genesis 15:13 – “Then the Lord said to Abraham, ‘Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.’”
So, either God waited and reacted to the free choices of Pharaoh or God had a plan and he is in control in order to bring about His good and perfect will. Again . . . your 25 years or the eternal wisdom of God???? Take your pick. So, lots more questions.
Did God know that Pharaoh would hate the Israelites? If he didn’t, how did God know about the 400 years? If he did, it appears that the slavery and Pharaoh’s hard heart was in was in God’s plan (plus Romans 9 states that Pharaoh was raised for this purpose).
If God knew about Pharaoh’s heart, did he know about Adam and Eve’s heart before they would sin?
If the answer is NO – then - If God knew about Pharaoh’s heart, why didn’t he know about Adam and Eve’s heart?
If the answer is YES - If God knew about Adam and Eve’s heart, did he plan for it?
If God knew that sin was going to occur, why didn’t God do something different? You can’t say “He did the best he could with what he had to work with.” God had nothing to work with.
If God could have done better, then why didn’t he? Was He not powerful enough?
So really the question is Chris, Was God not powerful enough (Omnipotent) to design a better universe or did God not know what was coming down the pike (Omniscient) so that he could design something better?
Lets look at what started this whole thing – the poverty. Why do we have poverty, slavery, inequality of women . . . go down the list . . . ? It is because of sin. You most certainly are writing in circles if you believe that we will never get rid of sin, but somehow we will get rid of the effects of sin. That is like saying that we can get rid of wet, but not get rid of water. Do you really believe that slavery is gone in America? Turn on the TV and you will hear about mail-order brides that are sex slaves here in the United States. Oh that’s right . . . we have laws against slavery so it is gone, but the reality is . . . it still exists. Do some research about the sex slave trade in South America and Mexico. That speaks to both women’s rights and slavery. That does not even begin to talk about slavery that still exists all over the world. Do you really think that just because women can drive cars, work as CEO’s, and vote we have even come close to dealing with inequality? Look around the world . . . we have not even made a dent. As long as there is sin, and there will be sin until Christ returns, man will never (I would like to emphasize that word “never”) usher in utopia (By the way, you want to know the difference between socialism and communism – it is the word utopia). But, because you have such a high view of man – you really think we have a chance to do this apart from Christ’s return.
Let me give you another example: I was debating with an atheist and she truly believes that one day we would rid our world of disease. Her faith is also in man and science. I know many people in medicine and when talking about a simple virus they have told me that a conservative number of viruses that we know of in the world is probably over 250,000. These are just ones that we know of. We have yet to cure even 1. These viruses are constantly mutating, so that even if we cure 1, it can change and become something that we cannot cure. This woman truly believed that man would usher in a time where disease would no longer exist. Disease and death is the result of sin. We will never bring that time about as long as there is sin. You and the atheist are arguing for the same thing. It simply is not going to happen. That doesn’t mean that we do not attempt to cure disease and make people’s lives better, but we will never rid this planet of disease because it is a result of sin.
You wrote: “God has set up rules in the world, and allows things to play out. He does intervene, but rarely. God does not micromanage every event in the world.” You wrote that a professor said: “God is in charge, but not in control.” That sounds so wise and yet; it is so wrong. Your professor either never read the Bible or he simply does not believe it. The Bible states that God is continually involved with all created things and I believe that. God sustains and cooperates with His creation and directs them in order to fulfill His purpose. I believe you come very close to a deist point of view. I do not see God standing off as Bette Midler sang – “From A Distance.” Again, let’s look at Scripture.
Hebrews 1:3 – “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” – So everything is sustained by God’s word. The moment Jesus does not sustain – everything goes away. There is no “just setting things in motion and naturally things will continue.” The Greek word here is “pherō” (to carry or bear). It is actually more than just sustaining, because it gives the impression of an active purposeful control over the thing being carried or sustained.
Colossians 1:17 – “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Again, without God being involved . . . all things fall apart. He is holding all things together and this is again confirmed in 2 Peter 3:7 – “But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.” God is actively keeping the universe. There is no doubt that this entire universe ceases to exist without God sustaining it.
Perhaps you and your professor were talking about nature simply does what it does. You know, nature simply works the way God made it work, but the Bible tells us that nature doesn’t just work by itself. God steps in and makes nature work. That would be concurrence. Concurrence is God cooperating with His creation. Ephesians 1:11 certainly tells us “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” “All things” . . . what part of God’s creation is left out of “all things.”
The very things that you and I think are just “natural” simply are NOT just that. Let me give you an example. We know that the grass in our yards need sunlight, soil, water, and then it will grow. AND YET – Psalm 104:14 (cited below) A meteorologist can tell you all the things that it takes to make a storm and all that stuff is true, BUT scripture tells us that GOD does all these things. Let’s look at scripture again:
Psalm 148:7-8 - 7Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps,
8fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!
Job 37:5-13 - 5God thunders wondrously with his voice;
he does great things that we cannot comprehend.
6For to the snow he says, 'Fall on the earth,'
likewise to the downpour, his mighty downpour.
7He seals up the hand of every man,
that all men whom he made may know it.
8Then the beasts go into their lairs,
and remain in their dens.
9From its chamber comes the whirlwind,
and cold from the scattering winds.
10By the breath of God ice is given,
and the broad waters are frozen fast.
11He loads the thick cloud with moisture;
the clouds scatter his lightning.
12They turn around and around by his guidance,
to accomplish all that he commands them
on the face of the habitable world.
13Whether for correction or for his land
or for love, he causes it to happen.
Psalm 104:14 - 14You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man’s heart.
I am not going to paste all of Job 38, but read it and you will read more of the same.
Why did Jesus tell us to pray – “Give us this day our daily bread?” Wouldn’t God have to be involved daily to give us our daily bread? If God rarely intervenes, why do you pray? Do you pray often? Why? Are you just hoping for one of those rare occasions?
You don’t believe God is involved in the mundane things of life. What is more mundane than people gambling? It is just rolling the dice. Proverbs 16:33 - The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
God controls it all. I can give your more scripture, but it does not matter because you do not believe it to be all true. I guess somehow I have misrepresented all of these passages. Here is the choice as I see it. I can either believe in all of scripture or I can believe mine, yours, or your professor’s ways, thoughts, or opinions. No matter what our age, we are but a vapor. Our view is 100% selfish and simply one view of a planet of 6.5 billion. You might think that it is my opinion verses your professor’s opinion. I do not see it that way. I see it as your professor’s foolishness verses God’s wisdom. I choose to believe in the eternal wisdom of God and what He has written in His Word.
Lastly, when it comes to salvation – do you pray that your friends and others around you get saved???? Why? God rarely intervenes according to you. It seems to me that you would be wasting your time hoping for one of those rare interventions when you believe salvation is totally up to man. Know this for sure, salvation is ALWAYS because of God’s initiative.
You wrote: “Those who are the most cut throat get ahead and win. The noble and honest lose.” Now if you want to see an observation that is untrue – you just gave us one. You just gave us a false observation from a very limited and young view point that is incredibly easy to disprove. I feel like if I use scripture, it does no good because you do not believe it, but here it goes. God’s word plainly states: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” So the verse speaks to the fact that the unjust will have good crops and money just like the just. BUT, the just will also have good crops and money like the unjust. So the noble and honest lose??? According to you the noble lose while the cut throat get ahead. Noah, Joseph, Job, King David, Solomon, Daniel – yep, you are right . . . nothing but a bunch of losers. You can’t give me names of believers who are wealthy??? Where is all the money that is being donated by Christians coming from? Ultimately, it is the noble and honest that are believers (again, I know that all sin) which will inherit the kingdom of God. So, do the cut throat win? In the end, none of them do. Is living this life without God winning? The king and rulers long to see what you see. They long to hear what you hear. We have a treasure that is beyond any that will be obtained in this life. If you do not believe that . . . I am truly sorry for you.
Good night – the plumber and doctor just cannot get a break. You are the one who brought in the limitations of their minds with these two – not me. Now you want to forget the plumber and talk about the two doctors – fine. So, you know in your brief 25 year history, and in reality, your 7 year history as an adult, that the “unscrupulous doctor makes millions while the honest doctor scrapes by.” First of all, I read your whining (yep – I said it) about having to wait for a doctor. You assume that the doctor just doesn’t care to be on time and in reality you know nothing about that situation or many others. Again, we have a very selfish and limited view of the world. I am not naïve. I am sure there are doctors that are in it for the money and they care nothing about the people they serve. BUT, I also know there are some very good doctors who serve people with the heart of a minister. You waited 30 minutes WOW. My wife has waited 4 hours to meet with a great doctor who wasn’t late because he was a jerk. I remember her calling me and she was trying to deal with a sick kid and spending half the day in the waiting room. She was certainly frustrated and at wits end, until she got called in and found out the reason she had to wait so long. The doctor was also a personal friend and he explained that he had to drive to the hospital for a pediatric emergency. So here is a man, who leaves his practice to take care of a child in a life or death situation, and we were frustrated because it took up some more of our time. This doctor owned his own practice and made a lot of money. He was a great doctor. Right up to the moment a disease took his life – he served others. He was never a loser in life. But according to you – “the noble and honest lose and this is exactly what happens in the free market system.” You really ought to get out more. If the noble and honest lose – again, why do we have all these rich Christians giving to charity? Your logic is a direct contradiction to the Bible and to reality. Perhaps you had to wait because your doctor was taking a nap when you arrived at the doctor’s office. Was it because he was just lazy or was it because he got called in at 3:30 in the morning for an emergency while you were at home sleeping?
Yes, your Prodigal Son analogy is a stretch. The parable was not addressing stewardship or charitable giving – but somehow I am limiting God by saying that. So I disagree in attempting to address an issue that Jesus was not addressing in this particular parable, but for your sake, I will address what you wrote. I do agree (WOW) with you that the parable was teaching what God's relationship to us is like. After that statement, we part ways. The money that the father gave the son was due to the son. It was due after the father died, but it was due him. You might want to take into account that the son had been working for the father his entire life as well. The difference with us and God is that God the Father owes us nothing. Nothing is due us. We do not deserve to take our next breath, and yet he gives it to us. The father gave the son the money early and the son goes off and spends it. Again, if you simply mean that charity is giving to our children – then I know lots of charitable people. You wrote: “The father continued to give even though the son was a deadbeat good for nothing.” That is absolutely incorrect. First, the son had been working for the father his whole life. Secondly, the father did not find the son and continue to give him wealth while he was living the party life. The son returned and was repentant. The father gave “again” if you want to see it that way, after the son changed his ways. It was not a continual giving. The Father did not leave to make sure the son had enough money to continue his foolish lifestyle or make sure he was doing alright. You fail to keep that point in mind. Read the rest of the parable as far as “continuing to give to the deadbeat son:”
1. The older son is jealous and wants to know why the father has given his son a goat for a party. The party was to celebrate a returning repentant son – it was not cash to continue a foolish lifestyle.
2. The father states that all he has now belongs to the older son – not the younger. The younger son does not have a claim to any of it. Did the younger son get any of it – we do not know. The parable does not tell us and to state anything else is speculation.
3. It was a celebration – not perpetual welfare
Sorry about thinking you went to OU. I made an assumption. My bad, but you miss the point. The point is that God is sovereign. He decided to give some the gift to perform at the colligate level and some he did not. It is God’s sovereign choice. Are you into upwards college football??? You know – every team a winner. Your thinking is backwards. You think that Stoops wins games because he is paid more. The reality is that Stoops gets paid more because he wins games. You think the dollar drives the inequality. The reality is that the inequality drives the dollar. Even if you gave all the coaches the same salary, there would be winners and losers, because some are more gifted. Stoops would win more and more would cheer and more would show up and we have the same cycle. You cannot put his giftedness upon the American dollar. OU hired him because he was a good coach even before he had all the money. It because he has been gifted by God to coach.
Concerning Proverbs: You think that I belittle you because you say (emphasis on say) now that you meant to misrepresent Proverbs 13:4. That is not what you did. Do you really think you had to prove to me that scripture could be taken out of context? You wrote: “Are you telling me that if I followed the proverbs, things would work out exactly as they say? Proverbs 13.4 "the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied." Really?! You will never want for anything if you are diligent? I know some medschool students who would disagree.” You were attempting to prove that this passage has not proved to be right throughout history. You did not read it in context because the verse has nothing to do with “wanting for anything” when it comes to material possessions or stature in this world. The Proverb is correct and has proven to be throughout history.
Are the passages in Job inconsistent – not even close. Satan incites God to get involved. Gosh – another rare case of God intervening. When it comes to taking Job’s health – Why did Satan have to ask God to do it? I will tell you why. Satan does not have the power nor the authority to do it himself. He must get it from God. So, as the passages states – Job receives blessing from God and he receives evil. Job would not give Satan the ultimate causality because Satan is also under God’s control. God knows what he is doing. I have faith in that.
What it boils down to is that I have what is called a more Calvinistic view of God and I would say that you have a more Armenian view – but that would be incorrect. An Armenian would not doubt the inerrancy of Scripture. We would see it differently, but we would not doubt the author – God. I can give you passage after passage that speaks to God not only knowing the future, but directing it to conform to His will, but if I did that – you simply do not believe the Bible to be wholly true.
It is amazing that you are so impressed with yourself that at the ripe age of 25 that you question if this is the best that God could do. I am not sure that I have ever heard or read a more egotistical statement from a Christian questioning God’s design or plan. At least the atheist just doesn’t believe in God. You state you believe in him and then question his judgment. Wow. Let me refer to Job one more time. I do not know what you have experienced or what you have seen in this life, but after all that happened to Job, his friends and his wife sat around and talked about why this happened and what should be the response of Job – God then shows up on the scene. One thing to make note of – God doesn’t even address Job’s situation. God simply tells Job – This is who I am and you (man) have no idea of all that I do and why I do it.
To address some of your questions:
You asked why bring request to God if he has already decided what he will do???? Why bring request to God if he rarely intervenes??? Yes – God knows what I am going to pray. David stated that God knew his thoughts and the words before they were on his tongue – Oh Yeah, that is in Psalms and we cannot base theology on that book.
Again – it is you who are limiting God – It is amazing that you have to ask me if God knows what I am going to pray. God is omniscient. God cannot not know everything.
You really want to talk about the Nazis again? You never answered about the Egyptians Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Rome . . .
I guess I will help you out. Let’s don’t single out the Nazis. Do you really think Hitler’s Germany was any crueler than those leaders and nations? I mean, did these pagan nations just decide to invade and rule over Israel or did God plan it? Well, according to you – God rarely intervenes so it must have been these cruel leaders. I think I have already covered the issue of the Egyptians.
You might remember that Nehemiah 9 is a brief history of Israel. Even in this brief history look at what God write through Nehemiah.
Nehemiah 9:27a – Therefore you gave them (Israel) into the hand of their enemies who made them suffer.
Nehemiah 9:28 – But after they had rest they did evil again before you and you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies so that they had dominion over them (Israel)
Isaiah 9 – God raises up adversaries (the Syrians and the Philistines) and then the passage states – Isaiah 9:13 – The people did not turn to him who struck them.
Isaiah 10 – God describes Assyria as “the rod of my anger.”
Jeremiah 20:4b-5 – And I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon. He shall carry them captive to Babylon and shall strike them down with the sword. Moreover, I will give all the wealth of the city, all its gains, all its prized belongings, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah into the hand of their enemies who shall plunder them and seize them and carry them to Babylon (Doesn’t seem like equal distribution to me)
Daniel 1:1-1 – In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand with some of the vessels of the house of God.
That should take care of Assyria and Babylon – if you need more passages . . . no problem. What about Persia. Well, you might want to ask Belshazzar about that. The hand writing was on the wall and then that very night, Darius the Mede comes in and takes over as the world power. Man, God just keeps on intervening. Those “rare” occurrences just seem to be all the time.
What about Rome – Jesus told Pilate very clearly that Pilate has no authority over Him except that God gives it to him. So what Jesus wrong or did God give Pilate authority and set up Rome to be the world power. Now remember this would be the government that gave us Nero. Hitler didn’t have anything on this guy.
Lastly, let’s go back to Daniel 2. Blessed be the name of God forever and ever to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;
So what about Dietrich Bonheoffer? Would he disagree with me? I don’t think so.
1. Did Dietrich believe in God’s word – absolutely he did. He believed Romans 13. All authorities have been instituted by God.
2. God designed Pharaoh for destruction and I have no problem believing the same for Hitler.
You believe that Bonheoffer would have disagreed with me because he attempted to kill Hitler. His decision is a great study in ethics. I would like to think I would have made the same choice, but was it right or not??? First of all it is clear that God raised up Egypt who did incredibly cruel things to the Israelites. It is clear that God gave authority to Rome who killed all the Israelite males under 2. That sounds incredibly cruel to me. So Hitler has no trump card on cruelty. God instituted all authorities and tells us to be submissive, but God commands us not to murder – and yet, I would hope to do the same as Bonheoffer . . . Why?
There is no authority except from God. Scripture also states for rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Let’s put this in context. This is written by Paul, who is under Roman rule (the government which put Christ to death) and the government that is ruling over God’s people. Back to Hitler, he was put into power by God and then he used his authority to go against the authority of God (he punished good and murdered). This is no different than the authority God most certainly put in place in the Bible. When the lower authority (the government) goes against the higher authority (God) the people of God should go against the lower authority and be in line with the upper authority. In Bonheoffer’s case, being in line with the upper authority meant that he went against a law of the upper authority – thou shall not murder. That is where the question of “Did Bonheoffer act in a way that was correct” comes into play. I could explain why I believe Bonheoffer acted properly, but I do not think that is the issue here. I believed that God raised up Hitler and that God destroyed Hitler as was according to His perfect will and plan.
Grant, I will be more than happy to answer your questions if you truly want to know, but there are two things that must be agreed upon:
1. God is beyond what you and I can describe or understand. Scripture tells us that - which leads to the second agreement:
2. You must believe scripture. If you doubt that it is God’s word – through and through – then it is pointless, because all I am going to rely upon the wisdom of God through His word.
Well, it has been a while since I posted my last response. Don't you think it would be fair for your readers to see the response to your questions? I certainly do. Congrats on your OU Sooners making it into the BCS NAtional Championship.
By the way - Grant - you asked if I had a blog. I do not and it can be found at http://honoringthelord.blogspot.com
Lyle, I never got an email that you responded, I have published it. I haven't deleted your comments before, so I don't know why I woudl now. Sorry for the delay.
Lyle, you are right this conversation is at an impasse. You make some assumptions that should not be made. I have read part of your rebuttal, and not only are you extremely guilty of what you accuse me of (arrogance and misunderstanding) you have put yourself as the only one with a right to interpret and read the bible. Any disagreement with you is a disagreement with the bible.
I really considered nipping this in the bud, due to some sage advice from two people, but I thought in my naivety that you might actually be capable of carrying on a conversation without boiling it down to black and white, me versus the bible type of argument. I see now that that was foolish of me. I have had a good deal of conversations with people too narrow minded to admit that some of their assumptions and interpretations could be wrong, and this one is no different.
If you would like to know the professor that said it, it was Roger Olson, and if you think he hasn't read or doesn't understand the bible, then you are more willfully ignorant than I thought before. I really wish this had gone differently, I feel like I tried to have a cordial discussion with you. but then you have to make statements like "time for big-boy theology". Lyle, I don't think you have read any "big-boy theology" in your life. You have heard a very limited, conservative point of view for all of forty or fifty years and cannot imagine how it could be wrong. i have heard all the arguments you will throw and have read a lot you won't. I've studied under people who have written volumes on this stuff and have learned that, unfortunately, some people refuse to admit that their view-point may not be 100% correct. This is why Dan Kimball had to write a book about why people like Jesus but not the church.
I'm going to start doing primers on theology, obviously it will include my point of view. You are welcome to comment, but I seriously doubt I will allow them through. I don't need pointless arguments with people who are the mouth piece of God.
Post a Comment