We agree. Job didn't charge God foolishly, and neither should any of us.
If anyone here charges God foolishly it would be you because you attribute evil to God. You claim that God ordains evil. That is the foolish charge. Job did not do that.
And he doesn't say that the Lord has done evil to him.
He doesn't blame God. God is not the author of evil.
It is his wife that curses God, not Job.
Consider the source and context of Ecclesiates before you quote from it. Why do cults use this book more than any other? Solomon takes the view of a secular philosopher, and looks at life from man's point of view, not God's. You would be wise to think about that before quoting such a verse. His conclusion is not given until the end of chapter 12.
Origin of Sin, Part Deux
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by convicted1, Feb 5, 2011.
Page 9 of 10
-
I am attending an institution which is vehemently opposed to the DoG (i.e. Ergun Caner vs James White controversy)
But I just repeat what I have been told.
The fact is that I was raised a Free Will Baptist.
My first higher education experience was at Southeastern Free Will Baptist College which is a 5 point ARMINIAN institution.
I am now pursuing a degree in an institution which is very antagonistic towards Calvinism. -
Job DID charge God with the evil that befell him. Job said:
the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
22In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.
and...
Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all the is did not Job sin with his lips.
I cannot believe that you cannot see this.
Job said, "I ahve received evil at the hand of the Lord."
God's Word said- "AMEN"
That is the idea the text CLEARLY declares.
This is SO simple.
Neither of these commentaries are Calvinist, btw. The latter is WESLEYAN ARMINIAN! -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
God's words over-rule Job's words every time! -
In other words, when Job charged God with taking away all that he had, God's word said that was not a foolish charge.
God himself said he did it later on (not that that will be enough for you).
Job 2
3And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause
Deut 32:39 See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand. -
-
Not that you will be willing to submit yourself to the Word of God if it disagrees with your tradition but God's Word also says of the evil that befell Job:
Job 42
Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:
I await the spin doctor. -
If you require FURTHER clarification, let me know.
But I am not going to keep posting lengthy, detailed posts like post 67 and have them ignored and then be posed with the exact same questions I just answered. -
-
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. 5 They have acted corruptly toward him; to their shame they are no longer his children, but a warped and crooked generation. 6 Is this the way you repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?
(Doesn't make much sense for someone in one sentence to rebuke these people for being "foolish, warped, crooked and unwise" and in the next line remind them that God had made and formed them if you believe that God made and formed them in such a way that they couldn't have done otherwise. He should have just said, "God formed and made you into foolish, warped, crooked and unwise people, but because that is what you wanted you will be held accountable anyway.")
The same chapter also says, "18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. 19 The LORD saw this and rejected them because he was angered by his sons and daughters. 20 "I will hide my face from them," he said, "and see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful. 21 They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols."
Again, not presented as a God who doesn't respond and react to man's rebellion and certainly doesn't sound like a God who created them in such a way that they would certainly act this way. He is angered and even jealous by their rebellion. Be objective here, when you read your verse in this context most people would not walk away with the picture of the Calvinistic picture of God. -
As if God's word doesn't also affirm the testimony of these so called "anthropomorphic" texts?
Example: Ps. 106:23
Therefore he said he would destroy them-- had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.
This is God's word affirming the Gen 30 account of God's relenting in the destruction of Israel. So, which one do you believe?
How about both? -
You did address one of the questions I posed and I'll reply to that in the next post, but you didn't answer these questions:
-
Please explain that. If you casually determined your son to lie, then what purpose would there be in merely saying that you permitted him to lie? You never just permitted him, you actually CAUSED him to do it, so what in the world does mere permission have to do with something you caused? Do you understand my question?
Nevertheless, it doesn't matter who agrees with whom first in regard to our discussion, what matters is that Edwards words and thus his intent is not inconsistent with historical Arminianism, whereas yours appears to be.
So, if we played the little Sesame Street game "which one of these is not like the other," we would have a picture of historical arminians, a picture of Edwards and a picture of Luke. We would have the Arminians and Edwards all saying the same thing regarding God's permitting evil and disposing of events to so that they certainly come about, and then we would have you saying things like, ""Did Dahmer kill those people? Yes. Did God kill them? God's own testimony: "I kill and I make alive.""
Which one is different? Luke is.
Why? I'm not sure because he won't define his terms.
-
Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold. (Job 42:11)
If the verse said that the demons comforted Job concerning the evil that Lord brought upon him, would you still believe it? We are not told anything concerning the character of these acquaintances. Why accept their words over the very words of God given in the first half of the first chapter? -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
The words of Job and the words of God are not set against each other. It is a deficient hermeneutic that seeks to value some of the words of scripture over all of the words of scripture. For example: There are some that want to take the words of Jesus over the words of Paul. The problem is the words of Jesus are not against the words of Paul--they are complimentary.
In this case, with Job, you have the account being related by a single narrator--so the words of Job and the words of God are penned by the same person and are, therefore, carrying the same weight.
Now the narrator relates the God and Satan made an arrangement. The narrator relates the "behind the scenes" action. The narrator relates God's words and Satan's words. The narrator relates Job's words. The narrator also makes comments. Therefore, because the inspired narrator is relating all of the account, there is no fundamental difference in the words of God, Job, or Satan.
Now, one of the things the inspired narrator attributes to Job is the following statements:
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.”
Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”
To the first statement, the inspired narrator says: In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong. To the second statement the same inspired narrator says: In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
So the narrator affirms Job's words here. The narrator says that Job attributes the things that have befallen him to God. That is without question. The narrator comments that Job--in attributing these things, ultimately, to God--did not sin by doing so.
Now, your hermeneutical challenge is that you are seeking to discount only one area of the narrator's writing--which you cannot do and remain faithful to the text. If you discount the one area, such as "in all this Job did not sin with his lips," you, then, must discount the entire account. By discounting one area of the narrator's account you cast doubt on the entire account.
Now, one is free to argue ordination as opposed to direct cause, one is free to argue (rightly, I might add) that God removed His hand of protection from Job. However, one is not free to argue--as you are doing--that one section of the text from the same narrator can be discounted (presumably, because you find it uncomfortable).
It is a truly poor hermeneutic that takes a razor blade to the text.
The Archangel -
He will tell you what the Bible is teaching in these passages.
He is no Calvinist but he is intelligent enough and has a solid enough hermeneutic to recognize that God's word teaches that God brought this evil upon Job.
Your strange interpretation cannot be backed by ANY reputable commentator or theologian.
You just made it up from nothing and deny the truth of Scripture thereby. -
1. Did Job sin with his lips? No.
2. Did Job speak only according to his understanding? Yes.
3. Did Job understand what was happening in heaven? No.
Therefore, whose words are more accurate? Job's or God's?
God's words of course.
Remember that inspiration only extends to the accuracy of what is recorded, and that it is recorded exactly the way that God wants it to be recorded. Not everything that is recorded is true.
When Lucifer said: "Thou shalt not surely die." Was this a true statement or a false statement? It was false. But it was accurately recorded. It was inspired. But they were not God's words, though they are the Word of God. See the difference.
The same is true in the story of Job. What Job has to say is not always accurate. Especially at the end of the story when his acquaintances (presumably including his wife who previously said, "curse God and die.") "now comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him."
Am I to believe that testimony that these people of questionable character attribute evil to God? Hardly. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Did job speak "only according to his understanding? Facts not in evidence as there are no specific statements to this in scripture, therefore this is an assumption on your part.
Did job understand what was happening in heaven? Facts not in evidence as there are no specific statements to this in scripture, therefore this is an assumption on your part.
Again, you are doing violence to the text to suggest God's words are at odds with the author/narrator of any given text.
Further, when Job said the Lord has taken away, etc. the narrator affirms that Job is correct. So, while Job may not be accurate in every word he utters, the words in Job 1-2 that I have already posted are accurate, not because Job said them, but because the narrator has attested to their accuracy.
As for attributing evil to God...when you see Ch 42 (and Ch 1, 2) is it not the narrator's words attesting to the fact that God had brought the evil (or calamity) on Job? Certainly. These facts are without dispute. The narrator actually says that very thing.
You are simply wrong because you are making assumptions of the text that simply are not there. Those assumptions are inline with your presuppositions and they do not accurately reflect the text.
The Archangel
Page 9 of 10