Skip to comments.
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW EVIL?
Fantasywriter
| 9/17/01
| Pastor Rick Warren/Saddleback Church
Posted on 09/17/2001 12:48:19 PM PDT by RnMomof7
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW EVIL?
Pastor Rick Warren
Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, CA.
Tuesdays horrific mass murder of innocent Americans leaves all rational people shocked, angry, grief-stricken, and numb. Our tears flow freely and our hearts carry a deep ache. How could this happen in our nation?
As mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, and co-workers begin to share their stories of the horror, this tragedy will be become even more personal. As this tragedy becomes more personal, it will become more painful and as our pain deepens, so will the questions. Why does God allow evil to happen? If God is so great, and so good, why does he allow human beings to hurt each other?
The answer lies in both our greatest blessing and our worst curse: our capacity to make choices. God has given us a free will. Made in Gods image, he has given us the freedom to decide how we will act and the ability to make moral choices. This is one asset that sets us apart from animals, but it also is the source of so much pain in our world. People, and that includes all of us, often make selfish, self-centered, and evil choices. Whenever that happens, people get hurt. Sin is ultimately selfishness. I want to do what I want, not what God tells me to do. Unfortunately, sin always hurts others, not just ourselves.
God could have eliminated all evil from our world by simply removing our ability to choose it. He could have made us puppets, or marionettes on strings that he pulls. By taking away our ability to choose it , evil would vanish. But God doesnt want us to be puppets. He wants to be loved and obeyed by creatures who voluntarily choose to do so. Love is not genuine if there is no other option.
Yes, God could have kept the terrorist from completing their suicidal missions by removing their ability to choose their own will instead of his. But to be fair, God would also have to do that to all of us. You and I are not terrorists, but we do harm and hurt others with our own selfish decisions and actions.
You may hear misguided minds say This must have been Gods will. Nonsense! In a world of free choices, Gods will is rarely done! Doing our own will is much more common. Dont blame God for this tragedy. Blame people who ignored what God has told us to do: Love your neighbor as yourself.
In heaven, Gods will is done perfectly. Thats why there is no sorrow, pain, or evil there. But this is earth, a fallen, imperfect place. We must choose to do Gods will everyday. It isnt automatic. This is why Jesus told us to pray Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
The Bible explains the root of evil: This is the crisis we're in: Gods light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness...because they were not really interested in pleasing God. ( John 3:19 Message Translation) Were far more interested in pleasing ourselves.
There are many other questions that race through our minds during dark days. But the answers will not come from pollsters, pundits, or politicians. We must look to God and his Word. We must humble ourselves and admit that each of us often choose to ignore what God wants us to do.
No doubt this weekend houses of worship across America will be packed.
In a crisis we cry out for a connection with our Creator. This is a deep-seated, universal urge. The first words uttered by millions on Tuesday were Oh God! We were made for a relationship with God but he waits for us to choose him. He is ready to comfort, guide, and direct us through our grief. My prayer is that you will attend a house of worship this weekend and reconnect with God. But its your choice.
Dr. Rick Warren is founding pastor of Americas second largest congregation, Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, CA.
TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: calvin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 401-410 next last
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Doesn't have to be. The_doc simply needs Gill to locate Eternal Security within the doctrine of the verse at all. And Gill does. Debate Over.
Hardly. Your position requires that all the other summary clauses must necessarily be included as well
within verse 14. They are
not there though they are found abundantly elsewhere in scripture. Since the four clauses are not directly in 10:14, neither is their effect.
The actual teaching is that of summary of verses 1-13, "and so Christ by his one sacrifice did what the law, and all its sacrifices, could not do, (Hebrews 10:1)". Gill provides an honest summary. The refusal of some to read what is plainly written and instead to inject part of Gill's summary of other verses does not constitute any victory for eternal security in 10:14.
But while I never cared to make your private reading of Hebrews 10:14 a cause for disfellowship, I felt (and told you so) that your treatment of the_doc and Jerry_M was viciously unScriptural and a clear violation of everything Scripture teaches about the behavior of laity towards clergy; yet I could not bring myself to join wholeheartedly in the_doc's excommunication towards you -- even refusing him directly, though I knew him to be doctrinally in the right.
An accurate description. And your application of Presbyterian standards in this instance will always be rejected by Baptists. You must be aware of this prior to making the argument.
And now, when you are making an extremely similar (though not at all as significant, I'll certainly allow) exigetical mistake on Luke 12 to the one you are making on Hebrews 10 (specifically, the incorrect and unwarranted assumption of monovocal exclusivity in both cases), I decided not to pursue the matter. I already wrote up at least 4 pages of response to your last post on the subject of Luke 12; but it sits, unfinished and unposted, in my MSWord files, as I decided for the sake of "charity" -- that is, a lack of desire to start a war with you -- to let Woody twist in the wind again (I'm beginning to wonder why he puts up with my desertions and retreats). I admit I may be forced to return to it now, since you are accusing me of dishonesty in my treatment of Lightfoot (which is absurd. I am extremely careful and precise in my representation of other people's theological positions. Accusing me of misusing the Commentators doesn't score you any debate points, George, it makes you look silly. Good grief). So, a third time now (at least), my spiritual duties and obligations shifted and were applied in ways that were social, not scriptural.
Then the apostle Peter was as mistaken as I am when he labeled it all a "parable"?
It must take quite a lot of study to contradict that which is plainly stated in any English translation you care to use. Not to mention commentaries and confessions.
To return to this matter of Lightfoot, you originally cited him as a contributor to the Westminster Confession. However, his own work which you classified as ambiguous on Luke 12 apparently did not convince anyone else. Let's examine the Westminster (Chapter XXXIII Of The Last Judgment, Subsection III) to see if Lightfoot persuaded his fellow-Presbyterians:
III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity:577 so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.578
578 MAT 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. MAR 13:35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: 36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. 37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch. LUK 12:35 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; 36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. REV 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus
Notice here that Westminster ties it correctly in harmony to the other gospels. Naturally, if Luke 12 is directly prophetic, one must also include the harmonics in the other gospels. There are, as you well know, a huge number of these harmonies of the gospel written since ancient times. Almost the oldest Christian literature we have is a harmony of the Gospels as you are no doubt aware from your studies in church history. They all, to my knowledge, harmonize these verses in the same way. So, it is not merely Luke 12 which is prophetic if Woody and you (and Lightfoot as you say) are correct. I could of course start digging out harmonies of the Gospel, commentaries, Bible translations etc. to support my point but I think it is already abundantly clear without such a tedious exercise.
And you still have not dealt with Peter plainly calling these verses "parable".
If this is a prophecy, which you argue as allowable, then you are saying that believe that Jesus simply ignored this "parable" error by Peter and that Peter's false testimony and misunderstanding of the "prophecy" has been allowed to enter God's Word and mislead coutless innocent readers for many centuries, clueless me among them. This includes the ancient fathers of the church right down through the scholars of the Reformation and to modern times.
This is not exactly a compelling case for prophecy.
Perhaps you could tell me, are there other prophecies in the Bible which we have misunderstood as parables or is this one ( in the gospels Luke 12, Matthew 23, Mark 13) the only widely unrecognized parable-that-is-really-a-prophecy?
To: ConsistentLibertarian
It always amazes me how people on both sides of the argument over the problem of evil fail to take into account the possibility that God is powerful enough to make good result out of temporary evil. If God is omnipotent and eternal and man has an immortal soul, then God can easily right any injustices in this life in the next life. This is not a foreign concept to us humans. We often forego temporary pleasure or ease for some higher good to be received later. We exercise for good health, we save for retirement and we even give to others altruistically. So a God who is eternal and omnipotent who allow us for a short time to commit evil acts upon each other is evil if He chooses to wait to give us our just punishment in the next life? I think not.
To: George W. Bush; OrthodoxPresbyterian
But that does not extend to letting people like the_doc lie about what I have written. I am subject to mistakes, but I submit that I haven't lied about what you have written.
You are welcome to correct the record, of course. But I still can't re-open normal channels with you.
343
posted on
01/04/2002 2:15:48 PM PST
by
the_doc
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jerry_M
To GWB, you said:
Early on, in my defense, I was never comfortable with the use of Hebrews 10:14 as a litmus test for your orthodoxy - and still am not...
Me neither. Orthodoxy is beside the point in this.
But while I never cared to make your private reading of Hebrews 10:14 a cause for disfellowship, I felt (and told you so) that your treatment of the_doc and Jerry_M was viciously unScriptural and a clear violation of everything Scripture teaches about the behavior of laity towards clergy; yet I could not bring myself to join wholeheartedly in the_doc's excommunication towards you -- even refusing him directly, though I knew him to be doctrinally in the right.
I don't regard GWB as formally excommunicated, for the technically interesting reason that only a church can do that. But the matter is completely serious anyway. So, I'm not sure how important the technical point is.
***
These things are tough. I don't condemn you for taking a course which is different from the one I would have taken. And I certainly appreciate your post. I just wanted to clarify issues, as immediately above, for lurkers.
344
posted on
01/04/2002 2:37:58 PM PST
by
the_doc
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jerry_M; RnMomof7
As a further clarification, I need to point out that I have never regarded GWB's private reading of Hebrews 10:14 as the grounds for disfellowshiping him. The matter is much more involved than that, as you noted in your post.
345
posted on
01/04/2002 2:58:14 PM PST
by
the_doc
To: the_doc
You are welcome to correct the record, of course. But I still can't re-open normal channels with you.
I hadn't expected any such thing to happen. Your claim for a concern for me which prompted you to attack me behind my back notwithstanding, you must be aware that my position on 10:14 is absolutely fixed. I have long since abandoned any notion that you and I could have any real fellowship in personal terms for obvious reasons. And I will point out that you are the one who has revived this profitless dispute many times, growing more underhanded over time to this new pinnacle in which you have perceived your "spiritual obligation" to attack me and misrepresent me without even flagging me.
As I can readily demonstrate, I did not apply Hebrews 10:14 to the priesthood of Rome as Calvin did. Calvin's writing here was merely an apt contemporary application of the teaching and was due largely, I believe, to the rather dire circumstances of the struglling Reformation against the murderous beast of Rome who was murdering Protestants wholesale at that time. I did note Calvin's contermporary emphasis and discuss it in these terms but never claimed it as the correct reading in ancient or modern times but one that was correctly applied by Calvin to the circumstances of the Reformation. I was extremely clear in my application to the Jewish priesthood and to Paul's clear intent here to absolutely establish the coming of the New Covenant in Christ and the abolishment of the Old Covenant. I said this many many times.
You may excuse your authoritative descriptions of my "incorrect" position as something other than a lie. However, given the duration of the dispute and the extreme harshness with which you have pursued it and repeatedly revived it, to find at this point that you never even understood that which I wrote so plainly so many times makes the dispute comedic. Well, actually, it just makes you comedic.
And you still think that you can make a credible case for any authority in scriptural studies after all this? Do you really think anyone should be such a masochist for the sake of what you offer in scriptural interpretation?
You are no doubt aware that my posts on this topic would entail many megabytes in size. No one is going to read all that at this late date. And yet, I am exactly correct in saying that my position has been constant and precise. And that yours continues to shift as you find ever more novel and unorthodox uses for Hebrews 10:14. And your isolation from established scholarship in this regard merely increases over the course of time. Since your memory is so poor, I should close with this simple reminder of how all this started, in case you've also forgotten your original post to RnMomof7. Do you even recall the actual subject you were discussing? I honestly doubt it.
"sanctified=saved"
To: RnMomof7
Have you ever read the Bible verse "What Satan has made for evil, God will turn to good." ? That is exactly what happened with the Sept. 11th attacks. True, a large amount of life was lost, but look at the good things that are happening!! People who were going to get divorced have stopped and decided to work on their marraige instead of ending it. People have stopped dating and gotten married. On New Year's Eve, less people drank alcohol--rather, they thought about the importance of life. More people want carriers as doctors, policemen, firefighters, and soldiers. Americans have discovered a great and intense love for their country not felt in a long time. And, above all, the incredible revival that has spred throughout our country! People are realizing how much they truly need God in their lives.
Yes, much was lost, Sept. 11th.........and yet........much has been gained.
-4mycountry
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; Matchett-PI
FYI, I am a realized millennialist. And as you know, we amills are famous for not reading metaphors as necessarily presenting literal stuff.
However, I, too, regard the parable in Luke 12:41 as presenting a prophecy. (Why not, ya know?)
So, I will certainly reserve judgment and would even like to see your work on the passage. (I confess that I think that GWB is being unfair to call you dishonest for saying that a parable can be a prophecy.)
348
posted on
01/04/2002 3:21:37 PM PST
by
the_doc
To: 4mycountry
Have you ever read the Bible verse "What Satan has made for evil, God will turn to good." ? That is exactly what happened with the Sept. 11th attacks. I posted this article for another freeper quite awhile ago,but it has come to life again :>) I did not agree with much the author had to say then or now .I believe God is still on His Throne and still in charge .
Like you I believe " that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."Romans 8:28
To: RnMomof7
Do we know Him better through this?
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
This says that for His choosing. Not ours.
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
But God loves everyone doesn't He?
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
God alone has the absolute sovereignty to choose who He will be merciful to.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Pharoah was "raised up" for no other reason than to "kick his butt" so the Jews, and the world would know His power in wrath.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O manwho art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
We are not even to question why it is this way. God is sovereign and He made it this way.
BUT WHY??
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
We all come from a lump with "Accountable to die" written on it. No one has excuse. But God choses some to be made to follow the path of righteousness and others the path of destruction. GOD makes it this way.
WHY?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
He did it to show those, whom HE chose to be vessels of mercy, how merciful He truly is to those whom He does love.
His elect.
Our "free will" which is no where in scripture, has nothing to do with it. It is all for the glory of God and purposely kept FAR away from works. Even the work of our choosing.
God has His reasons for September 11. I don't presume to know it yet though.
To: NATE4"ONE NATION"
Well nate welcome to the Reform discussion going on here ..It picks up around 200 or so I think..The original article was posted for a freeper friend..I did not have agreement with it then or now..the thread has come back to life and is generally a Calvinist thread of teaching and discussion..I invite you to read some of the posts and introduce your self to the guys..
To: zadok
Sin wilfully.
Paul talks in Romans 7 how we all sin, even he, but not willfully. It is the flesh nature. We cannot avoid it. Grace was to justify us and we are being sanctified. Conforming (a process) to the image of God's Son, Jesus.
John says if we say we do not sin we are liars.
God's grace doesn't eliminate our sin, it works in us to conform into the image of Christ.
Thank God for grace.
To: RnMomof7
It was God that came and introduced Himself to me..I did not go and introduce my self to God.
I have called myself a Christian for years but I never saw the "grace" as I do now. I tried to find Him but it wasn't till I got to the point of feeling "unforgivable" that I understood grace and had a theology change.
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
It is only God, in this New Covenant, who can show us who and where and why He is I AM.
To: the_doc; Jerry_M; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Me neither. Orthodoxy is beside the point in this.
This is an absolute lie. O.P. was entirely correct when he said that he didn't use it as a litmus test. But that was not your position, either in public posts or in FReepmail. You stated this many many times.
I refer you back to only a few of your FRmails and Jerry_M's to me on the following dates:
the_doc: 2001-8-28 11:04:52
Jerry_M: 2001-08-23 06:06:56
the_doc: 2001-08-22 09:39:14
These are only a small sample. Any honest reading of these FRmails will indicate that you consider me absolutely apostate and/or heretic and/or carnal and/or flat-out damned. And that the basis of that is my refusal to assent to your reading of Hebrews 10:14.
You did make my agreement with your unorthodox reading the litmus test of faith. And you stated it many times. I'm now starting to excavate the threads themselves to demonstrate your public statements to that effect. Perhaps Jerry would like to revisit, for instance, his charming statements that he expressed his sweet hope that I had suffered a schizophrenic breakdown rather than that I was actually rationally disagreeing with your reading of Hebrews 10:14.
Since you wish now to make pretense that I never apologized or tried to make peace, I will cite my very sincere attempt with a FReepmail apology on 2001-07-28 21:44:31. And I offered to make a public apology as well. However, I did not recant my position on 10:14. And you rejected my apology, subsequently renewing your demands that I recant and embrace your reading. This particular message was CC'd to both O.P. and Jerry_M and I offered to send a copy to spudgin and CCWoody as well.
Your lies find you out, doc. I can prove all of what I'm saying. I am honestly surprised that you never anticipated that I would keep copies of all this material, given your relentless and malicious campaign against me.
These were merely the items stored up most conveniently in my FRmail. I can find a great many more instances on the public threads as well. You actually seem to think that I can't. Would you like for me to research and post your exact public remarks to demonstrate my assertion? I will be glad to comply if you wish to continue to pretend that you never really cared how I read Hebrews 10:14.
Yes, it was always your requirement that I agree with your reading that was the issue. O.P. never once took that position, exactly as he says above. But with you and with Jerry_M, it most certainly was.
To: NATE4"ONE NATION"
I have called myself a Christian for years but I never saw the "grace" as I do now. I tried to find Him but it wasn't till I got to the point of feeling "unforgivable" that I understood grace and had a theology change.Same path brother..there are some excellent teaching posts here....some a bit "deep" but they There are some excellent teachers here OP,doc,Jerry ,Machett PI ,sola gracia ,Aggressive Calvinist .There are lots of "grace"folks around.....I just hang out to learn:>))Read on!!
Also there is a calvin list in the FR directory that has alot of Reformed threads ..It will keep you busy :>)
To: George W. Bush, the_doc, CCWoody, Jerry_M, RnMomof7
Just got back from work about 20 minutes ago (my "Friday" office closes late, and is some 60 miles from my home).
Thanks to all for your patience. I'll try and clean up my discussion on Luke 12 (and related issues) for posting now.
To: George W. Bush
No, I broke fellowship with you because I regarded you as having a factious spirit. That's different from being unorthodox. It goes to spirit, not merely doctrine.
It was always a question of the way you behaved in the disagreement.
So, what I said in #344 was true.
357
posted on
01/04/2002 4:23:32 PM PST
by
the_doc
To: RnMomof7
Thanks!
To: RnMomof7
There is no GOOD,without EVIL.There is no LIGHT without DARKNESS. Its the whole YIN & YANG thing.It has to be.life would not exist if we didnt die.
359
posted on
01/04/2002 4:27:58 PM PST
by
DAGO
To: the_doc
It was always a question of the way you behaved in the disagreement.
So, what I said in #344 was true.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 401-410 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson