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.
Tuesday’s 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 God’s 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 doesn’t 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 God’s will.” Nonsense! In a world of free choices, God’s will is rarely done! Doing our own will is much more common. Don’t blame God for this tragedy. Blame people who ignored what God has told us to do: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
In heaven, God’s will is done perfectly. That’s why there is no sorrow, pain, or evil there. But this is earth, a fallen, imperfect place. We must choose to do God’s will everyday. It isn’t 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: God’s 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) We’re 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 it’s your choice.
Dr. Rick Warren is founding pastor of America’s second largest congregation, Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, CA.
He isn't the only one to undergo a theology change, is he "Mom"?
Nate, Welcome aboard. The good ship "FReeper" often has rocky voyages!
Did YOUR mom ever tell you smirking doesn't do a thing for you??*grin* See my #355.
Nate meet Jerry. A Reform Baptist Minister that enjoys a good gloat!
I'll go ahead and post it now, followed by a response to GWB's #341 etc.
So what? If "the lord when he cometh shall find (Woody) watching", then should not Woody expect "to sit down to meat" at the table?
IF (as you correctly observe above) this Parable applies to all believers, and Woody is included in the set of "all believers", then why shouldn't he apply this Parable to himself? The ethical import of the Parable is that he should do so... no??
However, since you are now attributing a certain ambiguousness in Lightfoot (and to call it charity is more tactful than truthful as you well know),
No, charity is truthfully my intent. Lightfoot affirms the passage as Parable, but also affirms the plausibility of a reading as literal prophecy. And I frankly do regard this as the charitable way of dealing with disagreement here.
The reason being that the passage's obvious status as Parable is not mutually exclusive with its reading as Prophecy. Gosh, there is no legitimate reading of the last clause of the Parable of the Wheat and the Chaff (Matthew 13: 24-30, a passage whico is also specifically identified as Parable) except to read it as Prophecy. But how can Matthew 13 be both Parable and Prophecy?? Because the employment of Parable (moral admonition by typological illustration) is not mutually exclusive with the giving of Prophecy (predictive narrative). Parables don't have to be Prophecies (gosh, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus apparently described events which had already occurred, not future events); but - as in Matthew 13 - Parables certainly can be Prophecies. Some are and some aren't.
And I do not attribute to Bishop Lightfoot any more "ambiguity" then he quite expressly claims for himself.
"Unless it may refer to some such thing as this" is the same thing as saying "a possible additional reading". Lightfoot admitted the possible validity of Woody's reading, because he thought Woody's reading to be a valid possibility. My treatment of Bishop Lightfoot is honest and accurate. And, I believe Lightfoot's charitable allowance for the plausibility of a prophetic reading is warranted.
Because, as I have already said, many Parables aren't necessarily Prophecies, but some Parables are ; Prophecies (in addition to being typological moral admonitions). And Lightfoot's ambiguity arises from the fact that while of course he recognized the passage as Parable (typological moral admonition), he considered the Prophetic reading of Luke 12:37 to also be a legitimate area of study.
let me ask you a question about the "prophecy": If Christ is the bridegroom (as Woody says), then from whose wedding is Christ returning when He finds his servants? How many weddings and wedding feasts are described to us in scripture that our Lord shall attend? There is only one. That is the wedding feast of the Lamb and His Bride, the church. However, the faithful servants of Christ will be at the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven as His Bride, not waiting at home for Him to return from the wedding. Notice also that in the entire passage, the wedding the "lord" of the household attended is not described as his own wedding.
In the first place, there is no reason whatsoever why believers cannot be cast in two roles in the same Prophecy. In the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14... another Parable which is also a Prophecy -- in fact, a triple Prophecy, containing a dual immediate prophecy [persecution of the early church & destruction of Jerusalem, vs 6-7] and also an end-times prophecy [vs 11b-13]), the Church is both the Bride (obviously) and the properly-attired Guests. It's all the same Church, but Jesus intends to illustrate two different doctrines (theosis in verse 2 and absolute predestination in verse 14), and so he casts believers in two illustrative roles.
All of which is simply two say, if the Church can be both Bride and Guests in Matthew 22, then it can be both Bride and Servants in Luke 12.
But that's not the main point, IMHO. Frankly, I'm perfectly willing to grant the possibility that the Wedding of Luke 12 is not the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, as the passage (you correctly point out) never directly intimates that connection. Jesus might well be using "wedding" as a short-hand way of getting the Lord out of the House for the purposes of the Parable, so that he can talk about the proper attitudes of the Servants. But even granting that point.. and affirming that this Passage is indeed Parable (typological moral admonition), that does not exclude the valid possibility of reading verse 37 as Literal end-times Prophecy. Biship Lightfoot does not care to stake the categorical position that it is, but he expressly states that it very well may be. Employment of Parable is not somehow mutually exclusive to the giving of Prophecy. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it ain't.
So, if it was a prophecy, poor Peter thought it was a parable. Obviously, Peter was as apostate as I am. He did not ask, "Is this parable or prophecy?"
See above. You are assuming that there is a *mutual exclusivity* here, between Prophecy and Parable, when there simply isn't any mutual exclusivity. I don't know that Luke 12:37 is a Literal end-times Prophecy, but I personally agree with Bishop Lightfoot that it may be.
I want to submit to you an idea for your consideration: You should be more cautious with your assumptions of mutual exclusivity in Scripture.
While much Scripture is monovocal (e.g., most of the History is just that: History is History), LOTS of Scriptures are not exclusively monovocal (Psalms are often both Worship and Prophecy; likewise, as mentioned above, the Parable of the Wedding Feast is both Parable and triple-Prophecy)... and if you incorrectly assume that they are monovocal, you may miss points of theological value (and worse, you may begin fights with fellow believers by insisting upon a monovocal exclusivity in passages which aren't monovocal).
In fact, Charles Haddon Spurgeon specifically stated that Hebrews 10:14 was not monovocal:
The Jew had the lamb every morning and every evening, for there was a continual mention of sin; the blood of the lamb could not take it away. The lamb availed for to-day, but there was the sin of to-morrow, what was to be done with that? Why, a fresh victim must bleed. But oh, my hearer, our greatest joy is, that the blood of Jesus has been once shed, and he has said, "It is finished." There is no more need of the blood of bulls or of goats, or of any other sacrifice; that one sacrifice hath "perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Trembling sinner! come to the cross again; thy sins are heavy, and many; but the atonement for them is completed by the death of Christ. Look then to Jesus, and remember that Christ needs nothing to supplement his blood.
(In all the above passage, Spurgeon affirms Hebrews 10:14 as an indictment of sacerdotalism. But, Spurgeon further insists that the verse IS NOT monovocal on that theological point. He goes on...)
(And here Spurgeon’s declaration that “God must un-God Himself before He can reject thee” is just about the strongest preaching of eternal security that I have ever seen. If "God must un-God himself", You can’t get more eternally secure than that!!)
Lightfoot expressly allows that Luke 12:37 may not be an exclusively monovocal Parable (“unless it may refer to some such thing as this”). Spurgeon specifically declares that Hebrews 10:14 is not an exclusively monovocal indictment of sacerdotalism (“And yet I must add one more thought”). I will stipulate that he does not lead with the assurance of Eternal Security; he quite obviously leads with an indictment of sacerdotalism. But he refuses to leave the verse behind until he has treated secondarily upon the Everlasting Assurance which Hebrews 10:14 promises the believer!!
The orthodox Calvinist interpretation of Luke 12:37 is Parable, I’ll be the first to agree (How could it not be?). However, Bishop Lightfoot, as orthodox a Calvinist as one could ask, affirms that a reading as Literal Prophecy is also within the valid possibilities permitted by the Text. Thus, while you stand with one foot in the orthodox tradition (affirming as Parable a passage that obviously is Parable), this dogmatic assertion of monovocal exclusivity is your own. Lightfoot does not assume that Luke 12:37 is Prophecy, but he makes no such dogmatic assertion of monovocal exclusivity. You are out on your own, and outside the Calvinist mainstream, in that claim.
Likewise, the orthodox Calvinist interpretation of Hebrews 10:14 is an indictment of sacerdotalism, to be sure (this is the focal point of Calvin’s own commentary on the verse). However, CH Spurgeon, as orthodox a Calvinist as one could ask, specifically declares that the verse is not an exclusive, monovocal indictment of sacerdotalism, but that the reader “must add one more thought” and realize that the verse implies that “God must un-God himself before he can reject thee.” If that’s not “Security Eternal” language, it’s at least “Security as long as God is God” language, which is eternally secure enough for me.
If you can’t see what Spurgeon saw so clearly, though, fine. I never agreed with the idea of making the correct understanding of one verse (Hebrews 10:14) a “litmus test” of your Regeneration (more on this below), and I am not going to insist on it now, either.
But realize that the positions of Lightfoot and Spurgeon do place you outside the orthodox Calvinist mainstream. Not for your argument that Luke 12:37 is Parable, or that Hebrews 10:14 is an indictment of sacerdotalism; you’re right in both cases, they obviously are. What places you outside the Calvinist mainstream is the dogmatic insistence that they are that and assuredly no more -- that these passages are necessarily and exclusively monovocal.
This is as wrong as if you were to claim that Matthew 22 is exclusively monovocal Parable and most assuredly not also Prophecy. The fact is, Matthew 22 is Prophecy (as well as Moral Parable). And so such a position would be plainly Right in asserting that Matthew 22 is Parable, but would be flat wrong in claiming that Matthew 22 is exclusively Parable and most assuredly not Prophecy.
And that is exactly where you stand. It is where you have stood for six months.
Is Hebrews 10:14 an indictment of sacerdotalism? Absolutely. You could quote Calvinist commentators for a month straight who would agree with you on that – because it is an indictment of sacerdotalism.
But that is not where you disagreed with the_doc. Your disagreement with the_doc was staked on the claim that, as an indictment of sacerdotalism, Hebrews 10:14 most assuredly was not an endorsement of Eternal Security. And that is where you have broken with the Calvinist tradition and insisted upon your own private interpretation. In the first place, because the Commentaries really do teach Eternal Security in Hebrews 10:14 (“God must un-God himself before he can reject thee”); but even if you don’t see that, it should be patently obvious that none of the Commentaries support your private interpretation that Hebrews 10:14 most assuredly is not a teaching of Hebrews 10:14. The claim of monovocal exclusivity is not founded.
For precisely this claim -- the insistence that Hebrews 10:14 most assuredly does not teach Eternal Security – you have called the_doc “evil”, a “false teacher”, and heaped more vitriol besides upon him. Not for the claim that Hebrews 10:14 does teach an Indictment of Sacerdotalism; everyone on the Calvinist side (and all the Commentaries) agree with you on that. But for the claim that Hebrews 10:14 is exclusively monovocal, and most assuredly does not teach Eternal Security – THAT is your own private interpretation, and you have no Commentary support therefore whatsoever.
Likewise Luke 12:37, while it is certainly a Parable, is not necessarily exclusively monovocal. It’s a Parable, of course. But as Bishop Lightfoot affirms, the Text does not rule out elements of Prophecy; gosh, at least some Prophetic elements (the promised Return) are obvious. So again, the claim of monovocal exclusivity is unfounded.
In neither case had you grounds, nor have you grounds now, for going to war with the_doc and Woody.
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.
Not true. All four clauses are directly present in Hebrews 10:14. That is why Gill is including all four clauses in his commentary on verse 14.
Gill locates all four clauses in the body of his commentary on verse 14, because he finds all four clauses wholly fulfilled in the doctrine of verse 14.
That's why his commentary on verse 14 includes them. He doesn't comment on doctrine which is not located in verse 14 (that would be silly); he comments on doctrine which is located in verse 14.
And he locates the "duration" of Salvation in verse 14 as concretely as he does the "fulness".
Otherwise, he would not put it there.
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.
This has nothing to do with the Presbyterian/Baptist difference of interpretation on the Synodical construction of ecclesial relations between churches (binding Synods for the Presbyterians, voluntary Conferences for the Baptists). It is about the Biblical deference owed by any Communicant layman of the Church of Christ unto any duly-ordained Presbyter of the Church of Christ. I am not commenting on Canonical duties of Obedience at all. I am speaking to respect and deference -- which is a universal matter.
Then the apostle Peter was as mistaken as I am when he labeled it all a "parable"?.... 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....
All covered above. The problem is not that the passage is *not* a typological moral admonition (parable); it is. The problem is that Parables can be Prophecy as well as typological moral admonition; and your claim of monovocal exclusivity here is unfounded... and not a just grounds for fraternal war.
Thanks for the preceding 4 or 5 posts. You have certainly covered a great deal of ground, and very diligently. I have mostly refrained from posting on this thread due to the fact that I didn't want to be drawn into a conflict that was settled (to my satisfaction) almost six months ago. However, I did want to express my appreciation for your latest efforts.
(BTW, OPie is a contruct of Woody's , but it is too good not to use.)
I don't know how my last few posts were cruel. They were in no way intended as such, and I do not believe that they were.
But, if you do not wish to speak with me any more, I'll not trouble you. :-(
May God be with you.
My friend IF God can not prevent evil He is not God
Morning Faith! I believe that is true also for things like commentaries and "study bibles" If the word of God does not live IN you and speak to you,all the interpretations of men are of no use!
First of all, all thing will work for good only for those who are the called; see Romans 8:28-30.
Secondly, real studies have shown that there is not a revival going on at all. All church atendance is back down to their pre-9/11 levels. Several threads have disussed this. Furthermore, an intense love for country apart from God is nothing more than glorified whoredom shrouded in the guise of patriotrism. Without God as foremost in their lives, everything you have cited is ultimately meaningless and disgusting in the eyes of God.
It is written that even up to the day the Great Flood, people were marrying and being given in marriage. But none of them sought out God and clung to Him and made Him their strength.
Additionally, rather than unity, I see the seeds of division. But this is not unexpected in history or the Bible for Christ has said: "I came not to bring peace, but a sword."
So true. In fact, it only makes one look like the fool. Repeating a false accusation doesn't make it true either. Of course, refusing to find Eternal Security in perfected forever and the absolute host of commentaries you have quoted does the same trick. One only has to look at Gill on this thread to see that. In fact, all by yourself you display again my complaint against you: "I'm not the sword wielding type; neither is my Lord." - GWB You don't even believe the men, in whom you put your confidence.
And you again do the same trick by labeling me a false prophet and then wanting to simply let it rest and charitably have fellowship. This is in direct violation of Scripture and you are required to have nothing to do with me. But, then you probably haven't been told by your commentaries to do this.
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.