I believe you're misstating Augustine's position. I gotta wait till I get to where my books are. More later.
Augustine argues that God's will is undefeated. He argues that since God is omnipotent.. nothing can stand against God's will... therefore everything that happens... is as God will's it.
That is my understanding of Augustine's position.
I would love to be wrong.
You're right about the basics, I have a book at home that deals with this exact subject;
The Invisible Hand
(Do all things really work for good)
by RC Sproul
http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-...l/dp/
0849940850
RC's position is that nothing happens that is not within God's will - nothing contravenes God's will. This does not mean that God causes bad things to happen. I'll scan through the book and try to find some relevant quotes, but from what I recall, it would require quoting most of a chapter to make sense of the argument.
Is it not Augustine's position that since it doesn't not contradict God's will, it must be God's will?
The "from the father's loving hand" bit is a direct quote from Augustine.
I don't see how that can be taken out of context... and I don't see how it can be anyting but sickening to a Christian.
I don't know what the right answer is here, but I want to make a couple points.
The definition of good and bad is whatever God wants it to be. If God says adultery is evil who are we to say it is good. Christians are like athiests in that we have no basis for morality other than God.
if my father's loving hand cut off my son's penis... or raped and killed my little girl... I wouldn't accept it. I would kill him. No offense dad.
Abraham was going to kill his own son because God told him to. He didn't throw a fit about how evil God was. And then God sent his own son to be killed.
God cannot do evil, because he defines good. Whatever he does is good.
God is in a continual, and real battle with Evil. I am no philosopher, but I think that Evil is the absence of good. It does not exist on its own, in the same way that darkness is the absence of light. God is light.
Giraffe,
Evil is real. Evil exists. Read Job. Leviathan is not a Crocodile.
If evil exists, who created it? Who created Leviathan?
As for the book of Job, to me it is a book about the sovereignty of God.
Job's family was killed. You would probably say that was an evil act. God let it happen.
Verse 12: "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Then all he had was destroyed and his children were killed.
Verse 22: "In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing."
God didn't do the evil deeds himself, but he gave his permission. This would seem to be to be an argument against your post.
At the end of the book Job asks why God allowed all these things happened to him even though he committed no sin, and God basically says, because I am God, I am all powerfull, you belong to me, and I will do what I want.
Not to put words in His mouth, but to me this says that He can do whatever He wants and we don't have a thing to say about it, and it is a sin to accuse Him of wrongdoing. What He does is good, period.
Sounds like Augustine saw the total power of God but conflated possibility with intent.
Put another way, Augustine equated the free will God gave to His creations with causation. Which is a logical error.
I'm thinking Augustine was a stupid fuck.
I want to be clear, that I don't think that when a kid gets molested, that God is necessarily behind it as a part of His plan.
But there was one brutal killing of a innocent man in history that was a part of His plan.
Are you baiting me to comment 
well it worked. and you are wrong about Augustine, so there.
I think I ate all the bait EP!
You did indeed Giraffe.
You read incorrectly. Not that you're wrong when you say that God defines good and evil... but the moral to the story.
The whole book of Job is making the point that I am trying to make here.
That others are responsible for evil, not God, and that we shouldn't blame God for evil acts.
As for who created Leviathan... God has not revealed that to us.
Well Giraffe it goes like this. If I say the south was right, and the civil war wasn't really about slavery, everyone would say that I was a blasphemer of the PC teachings.
But if I went on to educate them about the whole story, they start to see that Lincoln used the slaves as a reason to hold the Union together, and that is what is happening here, Nate doesn't know what he is talking about, and I don't intend to educate him, don't care. Nate can use it as toilet paper for all I care.
As for who created Leviathan... God has not revealed that to us. I thought God made everything.
I am not sure I agree about Job. The evil that happened to him occurred with permission.
Farmer Tom needs to chime in. I have to go play softball.
There also is a verse that says God created all things good and evil. I will try to find it when I have more time.
No where is it said that God made everything.
It is said that God made the Heavens and the Earth... though actually its debatable if He actually made it, or simply decorated it.
No where is it said that God made everything.
Goof ball
The GOSPEL of John Chapter 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Don't pick on our saints.
There is much unrevealed to us EP.
God speed, Nate.
EP
As I said before, I would love to be wrong about Augustine.
If I am I would sincerely appreciate you explaining how.
When I get time, I'll send you an email, I'm really tired, had a bad day at work.
Pussy.
I know
Short version:
God made everything, John 1, God is the author of everything. He allows evil out of free will to teach us that without him there is nothing good. With him is only love.
This is what Augustine is basically saying, that since God allows free will there will be evil, because he so ordained it, and out of that evil he turns it into a good. Beating and crucifying our Lord was the greatest evil ever, from which came the greatest good ever.
God has a plan, and as you said yourself there is much unrevealed.
Augustine is a bit heavy with 22 books and all. Can you cite book and chapter for your opening quote. Thanks
So God makes sure every dark cloud has a silver lining?
I somehow doubt that very much. But I'm an ignorant heathen type, so take my crap for what it's worth.
I'm not gonna reread the book. I'll try from memory.
Copied sections straight out of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
There is no contradiction between God's absolute sovereignty and man's free will. God does not cause sin.
Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
God is wise enough and powerful enough to dictate events through the use of free human agents, even free human agents that think they're actively working against God's will (see Joseph's brothers, Herod, etc).
I believe that answers the question, and I don't believe the authors of the Confession understood themselves to be contradicting Augustine, not that it would have stopped them if they thought that (being the whole point of the reformation and all).
Anything bad that happens to a Christian, whether it be the death of a child, or whatever, God can redeem and use to his purposes. He won't let anything happen that we can't deal with, and he works things according to his plan, even if we can't see his plan.
There is no such thing as "chance". Anything that happens God let/causes to happen for some reason. Sometimes we have to take it on faith that God knows what he's doing.
Nate, do you have a good handle on Theodicy? ('The Problem of Evil')?
Augustine and Scripture are both pretty clear that evil is the absence of good, there is no such thing as "evil" as a stand-alone entity.
God doesn't make EVERY cloud have a silver lining.
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of THOSE WHO LOVE HIM, who are CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE..." (Romans 8:2
The book of Job makes clear God does allow evil to have its day, for purposes we don't fully understand, but that have to do with His glory. For the person who places their trust in God, evil circumstances can be a catalyst for good, whether that's a clearer understanding of God or some other, more material result He intends.
For those who reject God, though, evil circumstances logically lead to a nihilistic viewpoint that reality is absurd, and life only worth living for the pleasure of the moment. When that pleasure is unobtainable, then life should be discarded.
It's good to note Nate and EP are in agreement there is much that is unrevealed. True that.
I've no idea where that stupid smiley came from. That was supposed to read "Romans 8:28"
Jemison, it happens when you put the number eight next to the right parenthesis...it's code to Haloscan to make a smiley with glasses.
If you want to avoid it, put a space between the two:
Space: 8 )
No space:
So God makes sure every dark cloud has a silver lining?
I somehow doubt that very much. But I'm an ignorant heathen type, so take my crap for what it's worth.
Michael Maier | 05.24.07 - 9:26 pm
Doubt away, doubt is the lack of faith. God has a plan, and if someone gets raped, there may seem to be no silver lining in this world, but in the next. For Christ came to carry a cross, and asked us to pick ours up and follow him, it is a choice of faith or doubt.
But what makes a good example, is just what you are talking about. Overcoming doubt increases faith, and the doubt actually serves the good of God by increasing faith.
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
No offense, Bill, but that's self-contradicting gibberish.
God's will is good. God created men and gave them a will of their own. When it deviates from God's it is sin and it is evil. God did not create the evil, but rather man did. God always makes a greater good from every evil.
No offense, Bill, but that's self-contradicting gibberish.
Well, if you want to make the case that the Westminster Confession of Faith is self-contradicting gibberish, have at it, but be warned that there's quite a bit of support out there for this.
http://www.reformed.org/document...ofs/
ch_III.html
Bill Larry's assault on the Confession is no less bold than my assault on Augustine.
He probly figures if we're eatin' from sacred cows he'd cut off a t-bone for hisself.
EP,
I don't disagree with what you claim to be augustine's point. In fact... it appears to me you've stated it the same way I did in my post.
My point is... that the statement mischaracterizes God and is therefore blasphemous.
The death of Christ was not evil. It was an act of self-sacrifice. By Augustine's standard God allowed that evil therefore God killed Christ, not us.
As I see it Christ willingly and knowingly offered Himself up, because God required it of Him.
Self sacrifice is Good. Not Evil. Christ could've sparred Himself at any time.
When you read about a 4 year old girl being raped and killed... you can tell yourself that God allowed it to teach us all a lesson.
You should just be aware that you're insulting God in a profound way when you do.
More than God is love... God is good. God abhores evil. He does not by choice use it as a tool to instruct His loved ones.
That's like saying I should rape my son to teach him to be wary of yankees.
Fair enough, I thought I gave a laymans definition of III/1, I can give it another shot.
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;
God has had a plan in place from the beginning. All things have been known to God since the beginning. Nothing that happens surprises God. This is because God is outside of time. (that last point is not in The Confession but it's generally agreed upon)
yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures;
God neither causes sin, nor interferes with Man's free will.
nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
"Second Causes" as opposed to "First Causes". The First Cause is God's will, Second Causes are derived causes, such as man's action.
(http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/cp23.htm)
It seems to me, that many of the so called great theologians were trying to answer questions that they had about the nature of the universe/God and everything. They came up with their own "42". Then they wrote a book or several about it. The are neither unique or note worthy except that others foolishly read them and try to learn the answers to questions that other men had, instead of asking their own questions.
Bill,
"unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;"
Sounds a lot like it's God's fault. I realize that, to you, this might not mean "God is to blame", but in plain language its seams like thats exactly what its saying. Thats Nate's point, if God made it happen as a part of His divine will then He is a party to evil.
You misread Augustine, Nate just forget it. Just believe in The Lord Jesus Christ, As long as you do, and you do, then the rest is nothing you need to know, just believe.
if God made it happen as a part of His divine will then He is a party to evil.
Well since you accuse God, then you are better than God and he created you to take his place, since you don't like the way he did it. Because one thing is for sure, it is all his creation, and is implicitly responsible for disobedience.
I'll tell you what to do as God, just a suggestion though, give no one free will or the freedom to choose you, just make a bunch of robots that worship you day and night without question.
The death of Christ was not evil. It was an act of self-sacrifice. By Augustine's standard God allowed that evil therefore God killed Christ, not us.
As I see it Christ willingly and knowingly offered Himself up, because God required it of Him.
What Church do you go to Nate, change churches now. First you say that Christ willingly offered himself up, which is true.
Then you say by Augustine's standards, God killed Christ, not us.
So basically what you are saying that it was our sins that he offered himself for, but then you fail to realize that the offering was from God because Jesus was/is God. so the offering was from God and ordained by God as Christ was God who took on evil with a cross.
And those who crucified Christ in our sins are evil, therefore evil crucified him, which is our sins whom God created and brought a greater good out of the cross than the evil of our sins.
I'm dizzy.
Goodnight
In other words, if Jesus was God and offered himself up, then God killed God for our sins, and he created us with the ability to sin, therefore you are making Augustine's argument for him when you say there was no evil in killing God and that which is evil is part of God's plan.
I'm going to try to state this simply.
God made us and the world in which we live.
God gave us the ability to choose.
God gave us rules.
God told us that He loves us.
God demonstrated His love by having His son die for us so that we could live with Him.
God does not like it when we say things about Him that are not true.
Saying anything about God that He did not say or do Himself is treading on very dangerous ground.
Treating a possible implication as truth is not something we should be doing.
So far it looks like Augustine did this very thing.
I guess to sum up what I was arguing. You are probably right about Augustine. I don't think every thing evil that happens is approved of by God. Allowed, but not approved of.
At the same time, nobody can accuse God of doing evil, because he writes the definition. If he had required Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice, you could not condemn him as a child murderer.
Nate says:
God gave us free will. God does not desire us to choose evil. God abhores evil.
Augustine says:
God created all things. God's will is paramount, so everything that happens is exactly as God planned it.
Nate says:
The rape of a child is discusting and evil. God abhores it, and wishes someone wouldn't chosen to try to help the kid.
Augustine says:
The child, and parents of the child should accept the rape as part of God's plan for the greater good. The rape was God's will.
Nate says:
Augustine is an Asshole.
Nate: "That's like saying I should rape my son to teach him to be wary of yankees."
Thought y'all dun that fer fun, didn't know y'uz were teachin'. Yankees at least go for their daughters.
Nate,
You use much human thought, but I don't see bible verses. There are many that state that God causes (or if you like Ordains or is behind or controls) evil. You need to deal with these passages before you start calling people blasphemous.
Jamesco,
Do you believe God is all good? Or just a little bit good?
Perfectly good. 100%. Good Personified.
Yes?
Nate's never wrong. hehehehe
The Popes in his new Book:
In the Lord's Prayer, adds His Holiness, the singular "evil" (as opposed to the plural "evils" in some translations) is accurate because "evils (plural) can be necessary for our purification, but evil (singular) destroys.
"This, then, is why we pray from the depths of our soul not to be robbed of our faith," says Benedict, who explains that only in atheism is our innermost soul harmed. "So long as the dragon cannot wrest God from you, your deepest being remains unharmed, even in the midst of all the evils that threaten you," he intones.
"The central point is still 'that we be freed from sins,' that we recognize 'evil' as the quintessence of 'evils,' and that our gaze may never be diverted from the living God."
I couldn't have said it better, wounder why?
Nate,
You err in your critique of Augustine (and in your theology) because you don’t understand God’s Holiness. You emphasize God’s love and ignore God’s wrath and justice, a wrath and justice we all deserve. In short, your view of God’s character is incomplete at worst, or unbalanced at best. When we are “saved” by Christ Jesus, we are saved from God’s wrath and justice and receive God’s mercy instead.
Of the evils that infect God’s world (spiritual, moral, and physical) the Bible says: God permits evil (Acts 14:16); He uses evil as a punishment (Ps. 81:11-12; Rom. 1:26-32); He brings good out of evil (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; 13:27; 1 Cor. 2:7-8 ); He uses evil to test and discipline those He loves (Matt. 4:1-11; Heb. 12:4-14); but one day he will redeem his people from the power and presence of evil altogether (Rev. 21:27; 22:14-15).
(The Reformation Study Bible, theological note “Providence”, p. 900)
While I don’t think it will change your position, I would recommend R.C. Sproul’s The Holiness of God as an introductory read.
JAK,
What you are saying is true. The point you're missing is that God allowing, and then over coming isn't the same thing as God directing a activity. The point Nate is arguing against is that Augustine seems to be saying that God is the driving force behind the roll of evil in the world.
On the contrary Res, I would submit to you that it’s Nate that misses that point. It’s he that equates allowing evil with being the author of evil, and thus his rough handling of Augustine.
I am putting a post up on it.
Scripture says that God is not the author of evil. It also says that He doesn't want anyone to perish. Yet we know that evil exists, & that people do perish, so the idea that everything that happens is God's will is demonstrably not true. Was it God's will that Adam & Eve would rebel against Him? That's asinine.
His will always comes to fruition, in the end, sometimes even by roundabout ways. That's not to say that everything that happens under the sun is defined as His will.
His will always comes to fruition, in the end, sometimes even by roundabout ways.
Then all will be saved, for we know that "if the Son of Man be lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself" and "God does not desire that any should perish". If God's will will be ultimately fulfilled (and if He proposes it will come to pass) then Hell will ultimately be empty.
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858 ).
For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Those who try to make "all" mean "all kinds of" first of all lack any grammatical warrant for doing so, secondly they do not apply it consistently. When Paul says that God "makes all things work together for the good", does Spurgeon say that God only makes some things work together? I doubt it.
So do I Larry. But a skill called “reading comprehension” was once widely taught. I try to use it when I read. It’s very helpful for sorting such things out.
Jak,
This reading comprehension your so found of, do you have much experience using it?
Nate took a quote from Augustine; "To God... All wills... are subject, since they have no power except what He has bestowed upon them. Therefore the cause of things which makes, but is not made, is God." From this he extrapolated a doctrinal position (apparently correctly) that he disagrees with. Nate wasn't putting forth a definitive, detailed doctrinal position of his own, nor was he attempting to explain God's role as sovereign creator of the universe. All he did was detail why he thinks Augustine is a horrible theologian.
When you try reading more into than that you miss the mark. To disprove Nate you either have to prove that Nate has totally misrepresented the subject, or that his facts are wrong. I've noticed that no one is doing that.
EP's position that Augustine is right because the RCC has declared him right, and the various explanations of other peoples understanding of the sovereignty of God, doesn't disprove Nate. All that is happening is people arguing around the subject but not addressing the substance of Nate's assertion i.e. Augustine is a heretic.
EP's position that Augustine is right because the RCC has declared him right, and the various explanations of other peoples understanding of the sovereignty of God, doesn't disprove Nate.
Me where I ever said it was the RCC position although it is, I never used that as proof,
I however did quote Benedict, which he says in the forward of his book, that it is not a deceleration of infallibility of faith and morals, just his own opinion who anyone (Catholic) is free to disagree with.
I quoted no cannon or church law about Augustine. I simple told Nate he does not understand God, his view is a world view.
A good example,Res is that if God did not allow evil, we would all be zapped (nice way of putting it). Augustine argues on that point.
is that if God did not allow evil, we would all be zapped
Sure, but that's not what Nate, or Augustine for that matter, is saying. There is a difference between "ordaining" or causing evil and merely allowing it to happen in order to achieve greater ends.
EP,
You are right my friend. I completely mis characterized your point and the way you presented your position. I am wrong and I ask your forgiveness.
All he did was detail why he thinks Augustine is a horrible theologian.
And all I did was point out that equating the allowance of evil with being the author of evil is a logical fallacy, is unbiblical, and shows a misunderstanding of God’s character, a point you seemed to agree with as you thought it was something I didn’t grasp. Have you changed your mind? Why the hate?
There is a difference between "ordaining" or causing evil and merely allowing it to happen in order to achieve greater ends.
Um, yes, that is what I have been saying, and that is what Augustine is saying if he isn't taken out of context. God is the author of all things and in authorship allowed evil, and took evil and made a greater good out of it.
I'm through talking about this.
If God's will will be ultimately fulfilled (and if He proposes it will come to pass) then Hell will ultimately be empty.
Larry, when I referred to "His will," I meant in the greater context of His plan for humanity, not His perfect will in every conceivable case on a micro or individual level. I should've made that more clear.
when I referred to "His will," I meant in the greater context of His plan for humanity, not His perfect will...
God has two, conflicting, wills?
JAK,
No hate. The overall concept of the sovereignty of God isn't Nate's issue. Augustine failing (Nate's view) to get it right is. It's illogical to try to disprove Nate's original position by stating what you believe a correct view of the topic is.
Nate's position:
Augustine is wrong about X.
Being wrong about X makes Augustine a bad man.
If you want to disprove Nate on this you have to discredit one or both of those two basic premises.
My guess is EP is one of the few posting on this thread that is able to take one the first point from a factual point of view. As to the second so far no one has taken a shot.
Heres my deal. I don't know enough about Augustine to argue Nate's point one way or the other from the facts. I'd have to hear the argument on point #2 to see if it had merit. If you want to claim Nate is wrong thats fine just put forth a good argument for it. Saying "I see the big picture this way, therefor you've got it all wrong" isn't a argument against Nate's post, its simply a statement of your beliefs as such it is no more convincing than a statement of Nate's beliefs.
Res,
I think we’re on the same wavelength now. You’re right that the thrusts of my comments are directed at issues other than the one directly at hand. But in the same way that you cannot explain to a Jehovah’s Whiteness that Jesus is not Michael the Archangel without delving into the Trinity, you cannot explain why Augustine is not blaspheming without delving into the thought process that leads to such a conclusion and the larger issue of the sovereignty of God. In almost every theological debate you’ll find that the issue at hand is not really the issue, but instead the issue is a misunderstanding/difference of opinion of a more foundational issue. Arguing with someone who says, “I’m right and Augustine is an ass” is not rewarding. But to search Scripture and struggle and strive and yearn to understand our Holy God and Savior is. That’s why I answer as I do. I hope you will understand.
JAK, no worries. Internet debates are almost always fruitless, especially ones on religion.
Personally I never try to explain anything to a JW, its largely a pointless exercise if they've been a member very long. It's much more fun to ask them questions they can't answer and point out flaws in their thinking. Then make statements like: "so what you're really saying is that the Bible isn't reliable and God can't be trusted to tell us the truth." When it occurs to them that is exactly what they're saying, then you might have a chance to make some progress. As long as they stay on their script its hopeless.
Hows that for an example of chasing a rabbit?
I don't have enough of an understanding of Augustine to say what his teaching was, but if the quote Nate gave was an accurate representation of his work then I'd have to go with Nate on this. As you might have guessed from my earlier comment I'm not big on following the teaching of famous theologians just because they wrote something that others have found useful. We are all individually responsible for our faith. Pursuing that through scripture is a more rewarding goal than adopting someone else's understanding and opinion.
History is one of three things
1) Where we been
2) Where we are now
3) where we ar going
My advice, pick number 3
God has two, conflicting, wills?
That's not what I'm saying. God's will for humanity, long term, will come about. But His will on an individual basis sometimes doesn't. The stories of Adam & Eve, Jonah, & others makes this clear.
Augustine says that we should accept the rape of our child as if God lovingly chose to have them raped for their own good.
This is a distructive and incorrect characterization of God.
You've already said that, Nate, do you have any bible verses?
I'm not quoting the Bible Jamsco, I'm quoting augustine.
When he says we should accept evil acts as if God did them, then he is saying not that God simply allowed them, but that God planned and executed them as well.
Ya want bible verse? Read the whole book of Job. Its clear on who's doin' the damage.
I have - outloud to my kids last year - all of it.
I don't see how a God-Isn't-Behind-Evil person could put forth Job as a good proof text. But it's great for a God-is-Sovereign type.
But you suggest I look there. Okay. How about Chapter 1 verse 21 where Job (a pretty righteous guy) says "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised"
or How about chapter 2 verse 10 where Job says "Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?"
It sounds like Job might like Augustine.
Hmmm. What's that, Job might be wrong? Well, it then says that Job didn't sin in what he said, but his words sound like something you would call sinful.
But how about the inspired writer of Job in chapter 42 (the last) where, in verse 11, Job's family comforted him "over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him."
And did you skip over the last 4 (38-41) chapters where God list all of the different things on earth (some of them quite dark) that he controls?
I wonder if Augustine had just read the book of Job when he wrote that stuff that you don't like.
1) God doesn't list things He controls. He lists things that display His power.
2) Satan tormented Job. Not God. You claim God allowed... but the Truth is, it was within Satan's Power the whole time... since Satan rules this world.
You're correct. I shouldn't have suggested you read Job... not because I'm wrong... but for the same reason I've avoided quoting scripture throughout this... it doesn't matter what I quote... we will see the scripture completely differently because we use different methods to interprate it.
In otherwords... its pointless to discuss, without first spending a day or two agreeing on hermanuetics.
As you've demonstrated... one who begins reading Job already believe God is Evil, will find evidence to support the belief He enjoys.
One who already believes God is Good, and despises Evil, will find evidence to support his claim as well.
Thanks for responding, Nate, given that this post is a week and a half old, I’m glad that you haven’t just written it off.
A few comments:
You say “1) God doesn't list things He controls. He lists things that display His power.” This isn’t a one or the other. It’s a both. God displays his power using things he controls.
You say “2) Satan tormented Job. Not God. You claim God allowed... but the Truth is, it was within Satan's Power the whole time... since Satan rules this world.”
This doesn’t do anything with my point, but okay. . . . are you saying that God couldn’t have stopped Satan if he had wanted to? If so, I’m pretty sure most people on your side (like Vox) would disagree with you on that. And no, I don’t claim God allowed, I claim God caused, God ordained.
You say “for the same reason I've avoided quoting scripture throughout this...
it doesn't matter what I quote... we will see the scripture completely differently because we use different methods to interprate it.”
This isn’t why you haven’t quote scripture. You haven’t quoted scripture because you don’t have any supporting scripture, besides the very generic “God is good” passages, which anyone can use to mean anything, unless you look at other scripture passages to define what this means. Which I do. Above.
You say, “In otherwords... its pointless to discuss, without first spending a day or two agreeing on hermanuetics.”
I don’t think hermeneutics is the problem here. I think we might interpret the Bible the same way, except you are disregarding the passages you don’t like. But okay, hermeneutics. Help me out, here. How would you interpret the passages I quoted?
You say “As you've demonstrated... one who begins reading Job already believe God is Evil, will find evidence to support the belief He enjoys.”
The question here is not “Is God good?” but “What is a good God like?”
But as I’ve stated on my blog, I reject the notion that the Bible can be read in multiple conflicting ways. Always, one side is saying “I ignore that that passage exists.”
If someone you knew had something bad happen to him and he responded the same way as Job, wouldn’t you yell at him for “blaspheming”?
By the way, I just edited my last comment and posted it to my blog (with no names). It's pretty much a copy of what I said above.
Commenting by HaloScan
