|
Post by christopher on Nov 25, 2010 17:20:59 GMT -8
Prove it. It's not "mere speculation". It's his thesis. His book is his attempt to back it up with evidence. Well, I'm going to take the plain meaning of these verses: Gen 45:4-9 4 And Joseph said to his brothers, "Please come near to me." So they came near. Then he said: "I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. 5 But now, do not therefore be grieved nor angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life. 6 For these two years the famine has been in the land, and there are still five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvesting. 7 And God sent me before you to preserve a posterity for you in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. 8 So now it was not you who sent me here, but God; and He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. 9 Hurry and go up to my father, and say to him, 'Thus says your son Joseph: "God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me, do not tarry. NKJV and.... Gen 50:19-20 Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? 20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.NKJV
Apparently that's the way Joseph saw it anyway. How do you see what Joseph said? I'm sure Boyd must have covered this in his book somewhere, what did he say about it? I know "mere speculation" may sound like a cavalier dismissal, but that's not how I intended it at all. Actually, I really admire Boyd as a refreshingly honest scholar who is not afraid to risk harsh criticism in his field. I'm quite sure he put together a good case for his view. But my point was, so have others who have arrived at different conclusions. You said yourself it wasn't an open and shut case.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 25, 2010 17:39:33 GMT -8
His motivation is that Christians have often promoted a strange, unbiblical heartless view of God as one who deliberately brings evil our way and he is arguing that this damages our view of God which could potentially have far and wide consequences to our motivation to serve Him. If we doubt his goodness because of these things, then we cannot truly serve him with our whole hearts. The answer would be the same that you would give to a Calvinist about the practical reasons they shouldn't be a Calvinist- how Calvinism distorts their view of God and affects everything from there in some way or another. Actually, I don't see it as the same at all. The Calvinist assertion is that God has predestined certain people for eternal damnation.... forever. That's why I find the view so repugnant. But to me, that's a very different thing than saying God allows, or even arranges, certain temporal suffering for the good of his creation. Consider this verse: John 9:1-39:1 Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.NKJV
This verse strongly suggests (IMO) that this man was born blind for no other purpose than this one miracle well into his adulthood. Should the man be upset with God for using him in this way? Do you think he is upset now, 2000 years later. I bet it never crosses his mind except in thankfulness that he was considered worthy to suffer for his name. Oh, and by the way, the disciples had this attitude as well (Acts 5:41). Conversely, I highly doubt anyone burning in hell forever according to the Calvinist view would consider that justice had been served if they had no choice. It's also a major reason I believe the traditional view of hell is the least tenable of the three. It so doesn't match God's character to allow any suffering to be permanent IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 26, 2010 9:48:27 GMT -8
I don't think Boyd disagrees that God can bring temporal difficulties to test the believer (I don't have a problem with that either). It's radical evil that he's talking about- murder, rape, genocide, deadly or crippling diseases that he's stressing we not see God as a casual agent of (unless they come because of punishment of sin). As to the John 9 passage, he deals with it pretty extensively. And I'm going to pull a Chris-and-Robin here and pop out an alternae way to read the verse (it's fun to do this back to you guys) Boyd says: "the original verse does not say that 'he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed'. The Greek simply has hina with the aorist subjunctive passive of phaneroo ("to manifest") and can readily be translated as, " But let the works of God be manifested"" So the verse would look like this: Neither this man nor his parents sinned. But let the works of God be revealed in him.Boyd gives some additional reasons why this translation should be preferred (if you want to look into it), but his general take is that the way this verse is usually translated provides us an anomoly in Scripture where God is seen as responsible for birth defects, etc.. so we should be suspect of one passage going against the massive flow of the rest of scripture which attributes such things either to the Fall or to Satan.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 26, 2010 9:52:17 GMT -8
We are worthy to suffer for his name when we are persecuted by the world, evil people, or the devil, not when we are persecuted by God himself. That's the point here.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 26, 2010 9:59:05 GMT -8
As to the Joseph story, I asked you to prove it because all I remembered was the "what you meant for evil, God meant for good" which doesn't pose too much of a problem for this view. However, I forgot about the others phrases in that passage which definitely seem to present an obstacle to Boyd's view, and he does not address in God at War, interestingly.
But perhaps I can try and think through them as Boyd would. Let me ponder it a bit.
I like this! You're defending the Augustine Greek philosophy- influenced perspective on suffering and the problem of evil and I'm backing the open theist charismatic non-traditionalist rebel. ;D
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 26, 2010 17:37:04 GMT -8
I don't think Boyd disagrees that God can bring temporal difficulties to test the believer (I don't have a problem with that either). It's radical evil that he's talking about- murder, rape, genocide, deadly or crippling diseases that he's stressing we not see God as a casual agent of (unless they come because of punishment of sin). So, I'm sure Boyd addresses Job in his book*. What does he say about that? It doesn't appear in that story that God was doing a whole lot of fighting against Satan to keep Job safe, he was allowing him to harass him and giving him boundaries. As to the John 9 passage, he deals with it pretty extensively. And I'm going to pull a Chris-and-Robin here and pop out an alternae way to read the verse (it's fun to do this back to you guys) Boyd says: "the original verse does not say that 'he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed'. The Greek simply has hina with the aorist subjunctive passive of phaneroo ("to manifest") and can readily be translated as, " But let the works of God be manifested"" So the verse would look like this: Neither this man nor his parents sinned. But let the works of God be revealed in him.Boyd gives some additional reasons why this translation should be preferred (if you want to look into it), but his general take is that the way this verse is usually translated provides us an anomoly in Scripture where God is seen as responsible for birth defects, etc.. so we should be suspect of one passage going against the massive flow of the rest of scripture which attributes such things either to the Fall or to Satan. I can accept that as an alternative translation. I'm not sure yet whether I'd favor it or not. I'm also not sure I agree that there's a "massive flow" of scriptural evidence going against the traditional translation either. There's a reason that there's a debate. * Not to get off on too much of a tangent on how we're to understand the genre of Job, but taking it as the story is presented.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 26, 2010 17:46:17 GMT -8
We are worthy to suffer for his name when we are persecuted by the world, evil people, or the devil, not when we are persecuted by God himself. That's the point here. I don't know. What about Paul? Jesus seemed to suggest that He'd be the one showing Paul how much he'd suffer for His name. Acts 9:15-17 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake." NKJV and it's also strongly suggested that Paul's thorn in the flesh was from God to keep him humble... 2 Cor 12:7-10 7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. NKJV So, do you think it was Satan that was interested in keeping Paul humble? Or was it God? We see that God at least allowed it to happen so that Paul would rely only on His grace.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 26, 2010 17:48:45 GMT -8
As to the Joseph story, I asked you to prove it because all I remembered was the "what you meant for evil, God meant for good" which doesn't pose too much of a problem for this view. However, I forgot about the others phrases in that passage which definitely seem to present an obstacle to Boyd's view, and he does not address in God at War, interestingly. But perhaps I can try and think through them as Boyd would. Let me ponder it a bit. I like this! You're defending the Augustine Greek philosophy- influenced perspective on suffering and the problem of evil and I'm backing the open theist charismatic non-traditionalist rebel. ;D I hope I'm not ever defending anyone or any philosophy. I'm only interested in learning the truth. I know that Augustine had some of it, Boyd has some of it, etc. etc. and it's our job to flesh it out without wholesale dismissals. That, of course, is the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 28, 2012 10:16:10 GMT -8
bump
|
|