It’s a common theme in Christian music and Christian conversation. Life is tough. Things aren’t going how we want them to. We’re suffering and we don’t want to. Where is God?
Of course, the answer to that question varies. We might give up and say He’s not around, He doesn’t care, He’s not willing to answer. Or we might comfort one another: “Hang in there. He’ll get you through.” And a broad range of options in between.
The Bible is not silent on the subject. he Bible teaches that suffering exists because sin entered the world (Rom 8:22) and will, one day, be ended. Jesus specifically taught that suffering is not always the product of individual sin (John 9:1-3; Luke 13:1-5), though it is ultimately connected to the presence of sin in the fallen world.
And we know that He’s always there (Psa 23:4; Psa 46:1).
But at this point the Bible deviates from our normal “I’m not going to make it” or “I’ll hang on dearly until He rescues me” positions. James says to “Count it all joy” when we suffer (James 1:2-4). Paul says we can “rejoice in our sufferings” (Rom 5:3-5). Peter says our suffering identifies us with Christ (1 Peter 4:13; 2:21). Paul says in the worst of our suffering we are “more than conquerors” (Rom 8:35-37). God uses everything, including suffering, to shape us into His image (Rom 8:28-29).
Suddenly, both “I’m not going to make it” and “I’ll just hang on as long as I can” prove inadequate responses. The response Scripture is seeking is thanksgiving (1 Thess 5:18) and joy (James 1:2). We are supposed to be shouting our victories in the midst of our trials, knowing He’s winning—knowing He’s doing good things in us.
Jesus said, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). That sounds like neither “I’m falling” nor “I’m barely holding on.” It sounds like abundant life. Abundant life does not mean a life free from suffering. It means a life filled with God's purpose, presence, and transforming work even in suffering. Maybe we’re missing out when we spend so much time worrying about our suffering rather than watching eagerly for what God is doing at that moment—and every moment.
Showing posts with label Sovereignty and Suffering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sovereignty and Suffering. Show all posts
Friday, October 02, 2026
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Standing on Bedrock
David prayed, "You are great, O Lord GOD; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears" (2 Sam 7:22). One of the ways He is like no other comes from Paul. He told Timothy that God is the "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). There is no other. Now, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, lots of genuine, well-meaning, biblical Christians don't like that one. They deny it. Scripture says He is the "only Sovereign" and they nod and then explain that He is Sovereign by giving up some of His sovereignty to us, His people. The logic, then, is that He is the "only Sovereign" by giving up some of His "sovereign" and making us sovereign so that He is no longer the "only Sovereign." The idea is that God relies on us to do what He wants and if we don't do it, it doesn't get done. They go so far as to tell me that some people end up in hell because we failed to give them the gospel. The effect of this, of course, is to exonerate God of any evil. If bad things happen, it's because bad people did it, not God. If God's will doesn't happen, it's because people failed, not God. I routinely hear Christians say that "this clearly was not God's will" when horrible things occur, and this let's God off the hook ... but it negates the biblical statement that He is the "only Sovereign."
Scripture says things differently. Scripture says that God "does as He pleases" (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6). No one can stay His hand (Dan 4:35). He works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). He even holds the heart of the king in His hand (Prov 21:1). He predestined the worst evil ever perpetrated -- the murder of His Son (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28). Whatever He intends will happen just as He plans it to (Isa 14:24). We see "chance" and He determines the outcome (Prov 16:33). We make our plans and He establishes what happens (Prov 16:9; Prov 19:21). There are no exceptions, no variations, no mistakes. That is the biblical version. From Him, through Him, and to Him are all things (Rom 11:36).
Far from being a problem, this biblical reality is an incredible solution. It is the certainty that 1) God is good and 2) God is the only Sovereign that allows a man to experience actual evil -- attempted murder, imprisonment, sold into slavery, further degradation -- and conclude, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). It safely holds evil responsible for evil while giving the confidence that God always accomplishes good, even when it doesn't fall in the lines that we think it might. It gives a solid reason for hope in difficult times. It gives reason for confidence even in the face of evil. It is the bedrock on which we can stand and say, "God always wins!" and be glad of it. As for me, I can't stand anywhere else.
Scripture says things differently. Scripture says that God "does as He pleases" (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6). No one can stay His hand (Dan 4:35). He works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). He even holds the heart of the king in His hand (Prov 21:1). He predestined the worst evil ever perpetrated -- the murder of His Son (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28). Whatever He intends will happen just as He plans it to (Isa 14:24). We see "chance" and He determines the outcome (Prov 16:33). We make our plans and He establishes what happens (Prov 16:9; Prov 19:21). There are no exceptions, no variations, no mistakes. That is the biblical version. From Him, through Him, and to Him are all things (Rom 11:36).
Far from being a problem, this biblical reality is an incredible solution. It is the certainty that 1) God is good and 2) God is the only Sovereign that allows a man to experience actual evil -- attempted murder, imprisonment, sold into slavery, further degradation -- and conclude, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). It safely holds evil responsible for evil while giving the confidence that God always accomplishes good, even when it doesn't fall in the lines that we think it might. It gives a solid reason for hope in difficult times. It gives reason for confidence even in the face of evil. It is the bedrock on which we can stand and say, "God always wins!" and be glad of it. As for me, I can't stand anywhere else.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
God would never ordain suffering
My wise mother once told me, "Never use 'never'." She was, of course, joking, but making a point at the same time. Use of superlatives like "always" and "never" are overrated and often wrong. In fact, in terms of arguments, generally the easiest arguments to disprove include "always" and "never". You see, all I have to do to disprove them is to demonstrate a contrary example and the argument is done. Often the whole idea collapses around itself.
So when I hear "God would never ordain suffering," I'm almost forced to disprove it. Never? Jude 1:4 says, "Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were ordained for this condemnation ..." Now, without arguing about what "long ago" or "certain people" means, there is no doubt about what this verse says. Condemnation of some was ordained in advance. When and why may be questions to ask, but it is unavoidable that God has ordained suffering in this case.
"No, no," the protest rises. "It's not that God never ordains suffering. Of course sinners are ordained to suffer. It's the innocent. It is those who are His. He never ordains their suffering."
Well, there are a variety of ways to go here. How do you define "innocent"? We know that "all have sinned". But you probably (I say "probably" because I've seen too many Christians who mean that nearly everyone is innocent.) mean those who are saved. We could go through Paul's letters and see that God has granted us suffering or Peter's epistles to see that it is God's will that we suffer. But I don't need to go anywhere like that. Too much room for dispute. What is "innocent"? Who are "His"? Let's avoid all that.
How about the Son of God? I think we could all agree that He was thoroughly innocent. I think we could also agree that He belonged to God. We know that God said, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." We have both, then -- He was innocent and was His. Peter claimed this: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:22-23). It wasn't merely Peter's idea. The disciples prayed, "'The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His Anointed' -- for truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and your plan had predestined to take place (Acts 4:26-28)." Well, you remember Jesus, the Lamb. John called Him the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Even in the midst of the events, Jesus told His disciples, "The Son of Man goes as it has been determined" (Luke 22:22). From these passages to the copious prophecies before His arrival, there can be no biblical doubt that Jesus's suffering on our behalf was God's primary plan ... from the beginning.
If God ordained the suffering of His sinless Son, then on what possible grounds can the argument be made, "God would never ordain suffering", even of the innocent? If Jesus embraced suffering under God's will (Phil 2:6-8), ought not we do the same? If we wish to identify ourselves as followers of Christ ("Christians"), ought not we do the same? Given the number of texts that assure us that suffering is for our benefit, can we do anything but embrace suffering? Does complaining about it make sense? I don't think so.
So when I hear "God would never ordain suffering," I'm almost forced to disprove it. Never? Jude 1:4 says, "Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were ordained for this condemnation ..." Now, without arguing about what "long ago" or "certain people" means, there is no doubt about what this verse says. Condemnation of some was ordained in advance. When and why may be questions to ask, but it is unavoidable that God has ordained suffering in this case.
"No, no," the protest rises. "It's not that God never ordains suffering. Of course sinners are ordained to suffer. It's the innocent. It is those who are His. He never ordains their suffering."
Well, there are a variety of ways to go here. How do you define "innocent"? We know that "all have sinned". But you probably (I say "probably" because I've seen too many Christians who mean that nearly everyone is innocent.) mean those who are saved. We could go through Paul's letters and see that God has granted us suffering or Peter's epistles to see that it is God's will that we suffer. But I don't need to go anywhere like that. Too much room for dispute. What is "innocent"? Who are "His"? Let's avoid all that.
How about the Son of God? I think we could all agree that He was thoroughly innocent. I think we could also agree that He belonged to God. We know that God said, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." We have both, then -- He was innocent and was His. Peter claimed this: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:22-23). It wasn't merely Peter's idea. The disciples prayed, "'The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His Anointed' -- for truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and your plan had predestined to take place (Acts 4:26-28)." Well, you remember Jesus, the Lamb. John called Him the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Even in the midst of the events, Jesus told His disciples, "The Son of Man goes as it has been determined" (Luke 22:22). From these passages to the copious prophecies before His arrival, there can be no biblical doubt that Jesus's suffering on our behalf was God's primary plan ... from the beginning.
If God ordained the suffering of His sinless Son, then on what possible grounds can the argument be made, "God would never ordain suffering", even of the innocent? If Jesus embraced suffering under God's will (Phil 2:6-8), ought not we do the same? If we wish to identify ourselves as followers of Christ ("Christians"), ought not we do the same? Given the number of texts that assure us that suffering is for our benefit, can we do anything but embrace suffering? Does complaining about it make sense? I don't think so.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Why Ask Why
One last thought on this series on suffering and God's Sovereignty. Well, okay, one last thought for now. There is a bottom line thing going on here that should help illuminate the problem.
First, remember the problem. God claims to be Sovereign and God claims to be good. To disprove, therefore, that all that happens is ordained by God for His good purposes, you would need to disprove either His Sovereignty (which too many Christians try to accomplish when they try to absolve Him) or His goodness (which is generally the aim of the skeptic in these questions). It isn't really possible to disprove His Sovereignty, so what about His goodness? The question, then, is "Is God good?" I've tried to explain that He is, at least for believers.
So, here is the situation. Do you recognize it before I point it out? What we have here is the standard, age-old question, "Did God say ...?" We're looking, once again, at Satan's standard attack on God. "Did God say He was Sovereign?" "Yes! Undeniably, yes!" "Did God say He was good?" "Absolutely! No doubt about it!" "Oh, yeah? Well, God is not surely good. He knows that if you consider His standards against your own He'll be found wanting." Isn't this exactly the process that Satan went through with Eve? Question what God said and then question God's goodness. Eve listened and decided that God wasn't being fair. He was trying to keep them down. He didn't want them to be like Him. The fruit, she decided, was "good to make one wise." Mean ol' God.
When you examine the question of suffering and the goodness of God, keep in mind that you're playing in Satan's yard. He wants us to apply our own limited and derived standards to Him and find Him wanting. He wants us to elevate the creature over the Creator. It's his plan. We generally ask God "why" because of rebellion. You see, God did claim to be the only Sovereign. He is good. He has His own plan in mind and it is good and it is not primarily about us. Oh, sure, we're intimately involved, but it isn't, ultimately, about us. And He did say, "My ways are not your ways" (Isa 55:8). So, while it is perfectly acceptable to ask "why" of God for enlightenment, when we ask because He fails to meet our standards, you can be quite sure that the source of the question is not God. Care to guess who?
First, remember the problem. God claims to be Sovereign and God claims to be good. To disprove, therefore, that all that happens is ordained by God for His good purposes, you would need to disprove either His Sovereignty (which too many Christians try to accomplish when they try to absolve Him) or His goodness (which is generally the aim of the skeptic in these questions). It isn't really possible to disprove His Sovereignty, so what about His goodness? The question, then, is "Is God good?" I've tried to explain that He is, at least for believers.
So, here is the situation. Do you recognize it before I point it out? What we have here is the standard, age-old question, "Did God say ...?" We're looking, once again, at Satan's standard attack on God. "Did God say He was Sovereign?" "Yes! Undeniably, yes!" "Did God say He was good?" "Absolutely! No doubt about it!" "Oh, yeah? Well, God is not surely good. He knows that if you consider His standards against your own He'll be found wanting." Isn't this exactly the process that Satan went through with Eve? Question what God said and then question God's goodness. Eve listened and decided that God wasn't being fair. He was trying to keep them down. He didn't want them to be like Him. The fruit, she decided, was "good to make one wise." Mean ol' God.
When you examine the question of suffering and the goodness of God, keep in mind that you're playing in Satan's yard. He wants us to apply our own limited and derived standards to Him and find Him wanting. He wants us to elevate the creature over the Creator. It's his plan. We generally ask God "why" because of rebellion. You see, God did claim to be the only Sovereign. He is good. He has His own plan in mind and it is good and it is not primarily about us. Oh, sure, we're intimately involved, but it isn't, ultimately, about us. And He did say, "My ways are not your ways" (Isa 55:8). So, while it is perfectly acceptable to ask "why" of God for enlightenment, when we ask because He fails to meet our standards, you can be quite sure that the source of the question is not God. Care to guess who?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
God and Evil
All week I've been on this topic of God's Sovereignty and human suffering. The accusation is that a good God would not allow all the evil (either moral evil or simply unpleasant events) we see in the world. I've worked at pointing out 1) that God is Sovereign and claims for Himself both good and evil, and 2) there is value in suffering. Still, I'm sure the accusation hangs in the air.
If there was ever a case for gratuitous, capricious suffering being imposed by God, it would be the case of Job. According to the biblical account, Job was "blameless". At first glance it appears that Job suffers the loss of all he owns, his own family, and his very health to what seems to be a silly bet between God and Satan. "Have you seen my servant, Job?" God asks. Satan responds, "He only serves you because you've protected him." So God allows (it is important to note that every step of the way was permitted and limited by God) Satan to intervene in Job's life. Sounds gratuitous, doesn't it? Well, we can debate it from our own perspectives, but I would think that the best source of evaluation would be the participants. What did Job think?
When Job lost everything, what was Job's response? It is the very famous, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away." Job ... get this ... "fell on the ground and worshiped." And when he was sitting in ashes scraping at sores and his wife urged him to curse God and die, what was Job's response? "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" Contending with his friends he said, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him." But he was pushed to the limit. He rose up and demanded an audience with God. He accused God of being unfair. The pot demanded of the Potter, "Why have you made me thus?!" And God answered. Except God didn't answer the accusation. God simply (yeah, right, "simply") asked Job, "Where were you when I created everything?" Part way through this Grand Inquisition, Job raised his hand. He didn't say, "Look, God, you're not answering the question. All this is well and good, but it's still not fair." No, his response was, "I lay my hand on my mouth." God's series of questions showed the difference between Man and God, that Man was finite and God infinite, that Man was creature and God Creator. More importantly, when it was all over, here's Job's conclusion: "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You." You may call it capricious if you like. You may say it was all a silly bet between deities. But Job concluded that he knew God in a way he never did before. Argue all you want about the evils of suffering. Deny the goodness of God to your heart's content. When people like Job go through intense suffering that some would call "capricious", "gratuitous", or "non-redemptive" and come out the other side better off in their own view, it makes it impossible for me to argue that suffering is, by definition, evil. And that's just looking at it from the view of the benefit to humans.
There are a few possible positions to take on suffering. One far side says, "The evil in the world proves that there is no such being as God." There is a fundamental problem with this view. If there is no such being as God, then there is no valid, overarching means with which to measure "good". We're left to our own opinions of good and bad, and all without any solid basis. The more middle ground would say, "If this is what God is like, then I want no part of Him." This is perhaps a more startling and frightening position to take. "Yes, I admit that such a being exists. He simply doesn't measure up to my definition of God. I have weighed God in the balances of my sense of right and wrong and found Him wanting." Seriously? I wouldn't want to be around when, standing in front of the Judge of all the Earth, you try out that defense. The other side, then, would be to start with God. God is good. All that happens is under His control. Therefore, God ordains all that happens for His good purposes. What about all that stuff we don't really understand and can't really explain? In these cases, we would have to defer to the infinite God. We would conclude that humans have neither the ability nor the right to pass judgment on God. We would conclude, instead, that if we still see these things as evil and wish to bring an accusation against God, it's because we are faulty in our perceptions, not God. The choice is yours.
There is one thing that you should consider when coming to your conclusions on God, His Sovereignty, and the existence of evil. If you are going to accuse God (not question, but accuse), you are going to do so from your own opinion. The atheist or the one who wants nothing to do with "that sort of God" are drawing conclusions from personal opinions. It's not from hard facts ("Here is the clear core of moral values") or basic, verifiable, universal morality. A Supreme Lawgiver alone has the ability and right to present basic, verifiable, universal morality, and to decide against that Supreme Lawgiver requires that you do so based on your own opinion, not on anything solid. Are you going to decide that your opinion is infallible or are you going to rest on the certainty of God? Yes, yes, that would be an "opinion" as well, I suppose, but it is an opinion based on a much broader footing than "my personal viewpoint". But if you decide to trust God and wonder about the accusations of others, remember ... they're offering personal, human opinions against the Sovereign of the Universe. You decide how much weight you give them.
If there was ever a case for gratuitous, capricious suffering being imposed by God, it would be the case of Job. According to the biblical account, Job was "blameless". At first glance it appears that Job suffers the loss of all he owns, his own family, and his very health to what seems to be a silly bet between God and Satan. "Have you seen my servant, Job?" God asks. Satan responds, "He only serves you because you've protected him." So God allows (it is important to note that every step of the way was permitted and limited by God) Satan to intervene in Job's life. Sounds gratuitous, doesn't it? Well, we can debate it from our own perspectives, but I would think that the best source of evaluation would be the participants. What did Job think?
When Job lost everything, what was Job's response? It is the very famous, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away." Job ... get this ... "fell on the ground and worshiped." And when he was sitting in ashes scraping at sores and his wife urged him to curse God and die, what was Job's response? "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" Contending with his friends he said, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him." But he was pushed to the limit. He rose up and demanded an audience with God. He accused God of being unfair. The pot demanded of the Potter, "Why have you made me thus?!" And God answered. Except God didn't answer the accusation. God simply (yeah, right, "simply") asked Job, "Where were you when I created everything?" Part way through this Grand Inquisition, Job raised his hand. He didn't say, "Look, God, you're not answering the question. All this is well and good, but it's still not fair." No, his response was, "I lay my hand on my mouth." God's series of questions showed the difference between Man and God, that Man was finite and God infinite, that Man was creature and God Creator. More importantly, when it was all over, here's Job's conclusion: "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You." You may call it capricious if you like. You may say it was all a silly bet between deities. But Job concluded that he knew God in a way he never did before. Argue all you want about the evils of suffering. Deny the goodness of God to your heart's content. When people like Job go through intense suffering that some would call "capricious", "gratuitous", or "non-redemptive" and come out the other side better off in their own view, it makes it impossible for me to argue that suffering is, by definition, evil. And that's just looking at it from the view of the benefit to humans.
There are a few possible positions to take on suffering. One far side says, "The evil in the world proves that there is no such being as God." There is a fundamental problem with this view. If there is no such being as God, then there is no valid, overarching means with which to measure "good". We're left to our own opinions of good and bad, and all without any solid basis. The more middle ground would say, "If this is what God is like, then I want no part of Him." This is perhaps a more startling and frightening position to take. "Yes, I admit that such a being exists. He simply doesn't measure up to my definition of God. I have weighed God in the balances of my sense of right and wrong and found Him wanting." Seriously? I wouldn't want to be around when, standing in front of the Judge of all the Earth, you try out that defense. The other side, then, would be to start with God. God is good. All that happens is under His control. Therefore, God ordains all that happens for His good purposes. What about all that stuff we don't really understand and can't really explain? In these cases, we would have to defer to the infinite God. We would conclude that humans have neither the ability nor the right to pass judgment on God. We would conclude, instead, that if we still see these things as evil and wish to bring an accusation against God, it's because we are faulty in our perceptions, not God. The choice is yours.
There is one thing that you should consider when coming to your conclusions on God, His Sovereignty, and the existence of evil. If you are going to accuse God (not question, but accuse), you are going to do so from your own opinion. The atheist or the one who wants nothing to do with "that sort of God" are drawing conclusions from personal opinions. It's not from hard facts ("Here is the clear core of moral values") or basic, verifiable, universal morality. A Supreme Lawgiver alone has the ability and right to present basic, verifiable, universal morality, and to decide against that Supreme Lawgiver requires that you do so based on your own opinion, not on anything solid. Are you going to decide that your opinion is infallible or are you going to rest on the certainty of God? Yes, yes, that would be an "opinion" as well, I suppose, but it is an opinion based on a much broader footing than "my personal viewpoint". But if you decide to trust God and wonder about the accusations of others, remember ... they're offering personal, human opinions against the Sovereign of the Universe. You decide how much weight you give them.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Are you calling evil good?
What possible purposes could God have for evil? Why would He allow suffering? The accusation is that all suffering is bad and any suffering at all is capricious, gratuitous, unnecessary, and, of course, wrong. Is that so? Well, first, in answering that question, you have to realize that the accusation is wrong-headed, assuming that humans are the ultimate value. In truth, all creation is contingent. All creation is based on God, is held together by God, derives any value it might have from God. If we make the mistake of applying our standards (which, by the way, seem to be varied and arbitrary), then we stand in judgment of the Creator to whom we owe our very existence. But is there any reason to think that suffering and evil is anything but capricious? Is it possible that there is actual value in suffering?
I think we can suggest a few possible gains from suffering, but I need to start with the reminder that, in the final analysis, it's not about us. The question comes from the perspective of "Why would God make a world that includes evil?" and the answer is in God's hands. If God is Sovereign and if God is good, we can trust that this is the world God intended to accomplish His purposes, and some of those purposes are not about us. Still, I think we can find some value on our end.
One of the top reasons that we should appreciate suffering in this world is that it keeps us from getting too comfortable. It's a real problem with humans, actually. We get comfortable in life and we, oh, so easily, tell God in word or deed, "It's alright, God. I can take it from here." I mean, think about it. If all we had was happy all the time, who would need God and who would want to leave? Heaven would be almost moot.
Another value in suffering is that it seems to bring out the best in people. We may be bickering and fighting and pounding the table for having things our way, but have someone in the room suddenly cry out in pain and all of our selfishness seems to slip away. We want to help. Look at the horror that is the earthquake in Haiti and look at the response from a world that is intrinsically evil. Help came from everywhere because people, normally bent on their own interests, suddenly found a good reason to help others.
Suffering is a good tool for building appreciation. Every parent that has ever taken small children to the mall likely knows how this works. For a moment you lose sight of that little one while you're distracted. Whether he or she is actually missing or only missing in your mind for a moment, that little one is suddenly of supreme value. Shopping, entertainment, exercise, all that you might have gone to that mall for are gone. And when you find that that little one, you are so grateful. Expand that to so many other applications and you'll see what I mean.
One thing that suffering certainly does is make us dependent. We must not say, "It's alright, God. I can take it from here." There are too many problems in this world to chance that. We need to be connected to a higher power to get through these difficulties.
I know in my experience painful events have served as a purification process. So often I've lost things dear to me only to discover that they were more dear to me than they should have been. I've allowed them to come between me and my God. Or perhaps it is a process of correction. Sometimes suffering is a result of judgment, what the Bible refers to as chastisement from our heavenly Father. That correction, the Bible says, isn't pleasant, but "later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb 12:11).
Another useful outcome of suffering is what is called by some "a pool of pain". As an example, a parent who has never lost a child is not as well equipped to comfort a family who has lost a child as a parent who has. Or, here's how Paul puts it:
One of the clear biblical reasons for suffering is that it associates us with Christ. In 1 Peter 4 he writes, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed" (1 Peter 4:12-13). When we suffer for being Christ's followers, we share in Christ's suffering. According to Peter, this is the will of God for us (1 Peter 4:19). Paul considers suffering for Christ's sake a gift (Phil 1:29).
I'm just scratching the surface here, and these are just about benefits to us. God has designed this world to accomplish His purposes. Because He is gracious, even when others intend it for evil, He intends it for good. The world may not like it and we certainly won't be able to always point to good reasons, but the bottom line is always the same. God is good. God is Sovereign over all that happens. Therefore, all that happens is good. If you don't see it that way, the problem isn't God; it's your (or my) perception.
I think we can suggest a few possible gains from suffering, but I need to start with the reminder that, in the final analysis, it's not about us. The question comes from the perspective of "Why would God make a world that includes evil?" and the answer is in God's hands. If God is Sovereign and if God is good, we can trust that this is the world God intended to accomplish His purposes, and some of those purposes are not about us. Still, I think we can find some value on our end.
One of the top reasons that we should appreciate suffering in this world is that it keeps us from getting too comfortable. It's a real problem with humans, actually. We get comfortable in life and we, oh, so easily, tell God in word or deed, "It's alright, God. I can take it from here." I mean, think about it. If all we had was happy all the time, who would need God and who would want to leave? Heaven would be almost moot.
Another value in suffering is that it seems to bring out the best in people. We may be bickering and fighting and pounding the table for having things our way, but have someone in the room suddenly cry out in pain and all of our selfishness seems to slip away. We want to help. Look at the horror that is the earthquake in Haiti and look at the response from a world that is intrinsically evil. Help came from everywhere because people, normally bent on their own interests, suddenly found a good reason to help others.
Suffering is a good tool for building appreciation. Every parent that has ever taken small children to the mall likely knows how this works. For a moment you lose sight of that little one while you're distracted. Whether he or she is actually missing or only missing in your mind for a moment, that little one is suddenly of supreme value. Shopping, entertainment, exercise, all that you might have gone to that mall for are gone. And when you find that that little one, you are so grateful. Expand that to so many other applications and you'll see what I mean.
One thing that suffering certainly does is make us dependent. We must not say, "It's alright, God. I can take it from here." There are too many problems in this world to chance that. We need to be connected to a higher power to get through these difficulties.
I know in my experience painful events have served as a purification process. So often I've lost things dear to me only to discover that they were more dear to me than they should have been. I've allowed them to come between me and my God. Or perhaps it is a process of correction. Sometimes suffering is a result of judgment, what the Bible refers to as chastisement from our heavenly Father. That correction, the Bible says, isn't pleasant, but "later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb 12:11).
Another useful outcome of suffering is what is called by some "a pool of pain". As an example, a parent who has never lost a child is not as well equipped to comfort a family who has lost a child as a parent who has. Or, here's how Paul puts it:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God (1 Cor 1:3-4).Suffering, then, builds sympathy and actually can serve to connect us to people with whom we may not have been connected.
One of the clear biblical reasons for suffering is that it associates us with Christ. In 1 Peter 4 he writes, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed" (1 Peter 4:12-13). When we suffer for being Christ's followers, we share in Christ's suffering. According to Peter, this is the will of God for us (1 Peter 4:19). Paul considers suffering for Christ's sake a gift (Phil 1:29).
I'm just scratching the surface here, and these are just about benefits to us. God has designed this world to accomplish His purposes. Because He is gracious, even when others intend it for evil, He intends it for good. The world may not like it and we certainly won't be able to always point to good reasons, but the bottom line is always the same. God is good. God is Sovereign over all that happens. Therefore, all that happens is good. If you don't see it that way, the problem isn't God; it's your (or my) perception.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Problem of Evil
Remember the syllogism:
God is good.
God ordains all that happens.
Therefore, all that happens is good.
The problem we face is that God is Sovereign. Everything that occurs does so by His will. He may cause it directly or allow it to occur, but it is all by His counsel. That means that we have to answer a tough question. What about evil? The options we have, then, are to either deny God's character as either good or sovereign (or both), or examine the possibility that all that happens is good ... including evil.
First, there are two senses of the word "evil". One is "moral evil". The other is "bad things that happen". Now, we don't have a really big problem with the latter. I mean, we all know that bad things -- uncomfortable, unpleasant, painful things -- happen. But they're not evil in the sense that we normally mean it. So what about evil? This use of the word suggests intent. It requires that bad people do bad things. And surely that doesn't come from God, does it? Yet, if we hold that God is Sovereign, there is no way around the position that evil itself is either caused by God or allowed by God for His good purposes. Now, that's a hefty claim, isn't it?
Understand, first, that I'm not the one making it. It is required by the logic of the situation. That is, either God ordains moral evil for His good purposes, or God is not the Good and Sovereign God the Bible claims Him to be. Beyond that, the Bible makes the very same claim. When Job was tormented by Satan (with God's permission), he told his wife, "What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" Lest you think Job was mistaken, the writer affirms the concept in Job 42:11 when his family came out and "comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him". God Himself makes the claim in Isa 45. "I make peace, and create evil" (Isa 45:7). Now, we'd like to say that this is the "bad things" use of the term, but we're still faced with biblical examples like Micaiah who affirms that "the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets" (1 Kings 22:23) and the author of 1 Samuel tells us "The Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him" (1 Sam 16:14). We know that "God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one" (James 1:13), but this does not preclude ordaining evil to be used for His good purposes. So we have a logical requirement and a biblical requirement to conclude that God either allows or causes evil (of both types) for His own good purposes.
According to the Bible, then, God is good, God is Sovereign, and all that occurs does so by the will of God. That would logically and biblically include anything unpleasant, painful, or even downright evil. Anything else is an abandonment of very clear Scripture. Trying to dodge it won't help. Am I saying, then, that evil is good? No. But I am saying that God can (and does) use pain, suffering, and even evil for good. Tomorrow we'll look at how.
God is good.
God ordains all that happens.
Therefore, all that happens is good.
The problem we face is that God is Sovereign. Everything that occurs does so by His will. He may cause it directly or allow it to occur, but it is all by His counsel. That means that we have to answer a tough question. What about evil? The options we have, then, are to either deny God's character as either good or sovereign (or both), or examine the possibility that all that happens is good ... including evil.
First, there are two senses of the word "evil". One is "moral evil". The other is "bad things that happen". Now, we don't have a really big problem with the latter. I mean, we all know that bad things -- uncomfortable, unpleasant, painful things -- happen. But they're not evil in the sense that we normally mean it. So what about evil? This use of the word suggests intent. It requires that bad people do bad things. And surely that doesn't come from God, does it? Yet, if we hold that God is Sovereign, there is no way around the position that evil itself is either caused by God or allowed by God for His good purposes. Now, that's a hefty claim, isn't it?
Understand, first, that I'm not the one making it. It is required by the logic of the situation. That is, either God ordains moral evil for His good purposes, or God is not the Good and Sovereign God the Bible claims Him to be. Beyond that, the Bible makes the very same claim. When Job was tormented by Satan (with God's permission), he told his wife, "What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" Lest you think Job was mistaken, the writer affirms the concept in Job 42:11 when his family came out and "comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him". God Himself makes the claim in Isa 45. "I make peace, and create evil" (Isa 45:7). Now, we'd like to say that this is the "bad things" use of the term, but we're still faced with biblical examples like Micaiah who affirms that "the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets" (1 Kings 22:23) and the author of 1 Samuel tells us "The Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him" (1 Sam 16:14). We know that "God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one" (James 1:13), but this does not preclude ordaining evil to be used for His good purposes. So we have a logical requirement and a biblical requirement to conclude that God either allows or causes evil (of both types) for His own good purposes.
According to the Bible, then, God is good, God is Sovereign, and all that occurs does so by the will of God. That would logically and biblically include anything unpleasant, painful, or even downright evil. Anything else is an abandonment of very clear Scripture. Trying to dodge it won't help. Am I saying, then, that evil is good? No. But I am saying that God can (and does) use pain, suffering, and even evil for good. Tomorrow we'll look at how.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Danger of Sovereignty
The Bible is pretty clear on the topic of God's Sovereignty -- it needs a capital "S". Okay, nothing about capitalization, but you get the idea. Human sovereignty is always lower case. People have limited sovereignty. God's Sovereignty, on the other hand, is unlimited. According to the Bible, everything that happens is according to the will of God. He determines all that occurs. It's as if every decision and every possible event goes across His desk and He approves or denies it. Way too crass, I know, but it's not an overstatement. Beyond that, anything that does not happen that He wants to happen He will certainly bring about. Here's how one well-known source puts it:
There is a problem with this position. If, in fact, God is actually that Sovereign (you know, with a capital "S"), then what do we do with all the bad stuff around us? When my sister-in-law's fiancé was in an accident and she asked, "Why would God do this?", her sister answered, "God didn't do this; Satan did." But if we are going to affirm that God is indeed Sovereign, this dodge won't work. Whether God actually causes or merely approves unpleasant things, the bottom line conclusion is that God is ... well ... ultimately responsible. There, I said it. If God works all things after the counsel of His will, then at the end of the day He is the one that holds the final responsibility. Now think about that for a moment. That's quite an accusation. I mean, what about Hitler? Sure, sure, Hitler did what he did and is responsible for what he did, but underneath it all God approved the rise of Hitler to power and allowed 6 million Jews to be murdered. Or closer in time, how about 9/11? Either God knew about and intentionally allowed those terrorists to fly airplanes into buildings, or He's not God.
Of course, for a large segment of Christianity, this isn't acceptable. That's why a large segment of Christianity has taken the extraordinary step of siding with Scripture ... unless, of course, you're talking about this concept of Sovereignty. No, no, God isn't that sovereign! (See how it went to a lowercase "s"?) No, He has allowed Man's Free Will to dominate. He has intentionally tied His own hands and allowed Man to do as He pleases. (See how that "H" went to uppercase?) No, no, we'll not be laying Hurricane Katrina or 9/11 or the death of my friend's newborn baby at God's feet. He wouldn't do it! It's not Him! It's that ol' devil, Satan! He's the one. God wouldn't allow it. And we're at the problem of Sovereignty again.
You see, if we allow Man's Free Will (I hope by now you're paying attention to capital letters) to reign over His plans, then the Bible lied when it said that God works all things after the counsel of His will. If God has tied His own hands for anything at all, then the Bible lied when it referred to Jesus as "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords." If we're going to move anything into the place that God claims alone in Scripture, then the Bible was wrong and God is not God.
This is the standard move of so many Christians. Absolve God and blame it Man or Satan or "chance". The move is fatal. It puts to death the biblical God. It ignores the claims of the Bible, the claims of His people, and His own claims. Yet, without it, where are we? We have a very difficult question to face. If God is actually Sovereign like the Bible says He is, what are we to do with all the bad things that happen in the world? How do we explain that a good, omnipotent, loving God actually allowed if not caused these things?
And that, dear readers, is the final danger of Sovereignty. Either you can deny it and terminate the biblical version of God or you can embrace it and then figure out what to do with evil and suffering. What are you going to do? I'll give you a little hint. Here's a logic sequence:
God is good.
God ordains all that comes to pass.
Therefore, all that comes to pass is good.
It is what the world of logic calls a "valid argument". That is, it doesn't violate any laws of logic. So all you have to figure out is how is all that comes to pass good? There ... that ought to get you started, right?
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 (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch III:I.This statement, of course, is inadequate to encompass the biblical version. Yes, He ordains all that comes to pass. But according to God, "I make well-being and create calamity" (Isa 45:7). In 1 Kings 22 we have the story of Ahab and Micaiah. In that story the prophet Micaiah tells Ahab, "The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets" (1 Kings 22:23). In other words, in all things at all times, "Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps" (Psa 135:6).
There is a problem with this position. If, in fact, God is actually that Sovereign (you know, with a capital "S"), then what do we do with all the bad stuff around us? When my sister-in-law's fiancé was in an accident and she asked, "Why would God do this?", her sister answered, "God didn't do this; Satan did." But if we are going to affirm that God is indeed Sovereign, this dodge won't work. Whether God actually causes or merely approves unpleasant things, the bottom line conclusion is that God is ... well ... ultimately responsible. There, I said it. If God works all things after the counsel of His will, then at the end of the day He is the one that holds the final responsibility. Now think about that for a moment. That's quite an accusation. I mean, what about Hitler? Sure, sure, Hitler did what he did and is responsible for what he did, but underneath it all God approved the rise of Hitler to power and allowed 6 million Jews to be murdered. Or closer in time, how about 9/11? Either God knew about and intentionally allowed those terrorists to fly airplanes into buildings, or He's not God.
Of course, for a large segment of Christianity, this isn't acceptable. That's why a large segment of Christianity has taken the extraordinary step of siding with Scripture ... unless, of course, you're talking about this concept of Sovereignty. No, no, God isn't that sovereign! (See how it went to a lowercase "s"?) No, He has allowed Man's Free Will to dominate. He has intentionally tied His own hands and allowed Man to do as He pleases. (See how that "H" went to uppercase?) No, no, we'll not be laying Hurricane Katrina or 9/11 or the death of my friend's newborn baby at God's feet. He wouldn't do it! It's not Him! It's that ol' devil, Satan! He's the one. God wouldn't allow it. And we're at the problem of Sovereignty again.
You see, if we allow Man's Free Will (I hope by now you're paying attention to capital letters) to reign over His plans, then the Bible lied when it said that God works all things after the counsel of His will. If God has tied His own hands for anything at all, then the Bible lied when it referred to Jesus as "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords." If we're going to move anything into the place that God claims alone in Scripture, then the Bible was wrong and God is not God.
This is the standard move of so many Christians. Absolve God and blame it Man or Satan or "chance". The move is fatal. It puts to death the biblical God. It ignores the claims of the Bible, the claims of His people, and His own claims. Yet, without it, where are we? We have a very difficult question to face. If God is actually Sovereign like the Bible says He is, what are we to do with all the bad things that happen in the world? How do we explain that a good, omnipotent, loving God actually allowed if not caused these things?
And that, dear readers, is the final danger of Sovereignty. Either you can deny it and terminate the biblical version of God or you can embrace it and then figure out what to do with evil and suffering. What are you going to do? I'll give you a little hint. Here's a logic sequence:
God is good.
God ordains all that comes to pass.
Therefore, all that comes to pass is good.
It is what the world of logic calls a "valid argument". That is, it doesn't violate any laws of logic. So all you have to figure out is how is all that comes to pass good? There ... that ought to get you started, right?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
A Celebration of Sovereignty
A sampling of passages on the topic of God's sovereignty ...
[God] works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11).Say what you will, I think it is clear that the Bible claims that God is the ultimate sovereign. And think what you want, I am personally very happy that He is.
... one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all (Eph 4:6).
... He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen (1 Tim 6:15-16).
For the kingdom is the LORD'S And He rules over the nations (Psa 22:28).
The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it (Psa 24:1).
Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases (Psa 115:3).
I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things (Isa 45:6-7).
Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth? (Lam 3:37-38).
"Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; He removes kings and sets up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; He reveals deep and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with Him (Dan 2:20-22).
For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof (1 Cor 10:26).
The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will (Prov 21:1).
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Your dominion endures throughout all generations (Psa 145:13).
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matt 28:18).
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Traits We Value
What are the character traits you find admirable in a human being? I'm sure there is a list. We certainly admire integrity. The quality of compassion would likely be on that list. We do like bravery. Generosity is always a plus and, its overarching form -- selflessness. While we may admit a great lack of it if we're honest, honesty is really admirable, at least in others. And who doesn't like kindness, gentleness, humility ... you know, a lot of those biblically-listed things. There's something about a joyful person that just lifts your spirits. And, of course, being a loving person would rank up there very near the top.
I have only begun to list, but here's something that may be a little ... jolting to think about. Are you aware that almost all qualities that we admire require adversity to be valuable? Think about it. The character traits that we appreciate are only really worth anything when they are difficult to do.
Consider courage. Bravery is not the absence of fear, but the ability to face situations that cause fear. If there is no fear, there is no courage. One of the overarching traits is integrity. What is integrity? It is, in the most literal sense, "undivided". It is, then, adhering to moral and ethical principles as a whole. If that was second-nature, if there was no temptation, no concern about failing to adhere, then it would be meaningless. The generous aren't admired because they don't care about money (as an example), but because they know the value of it and consider others important enough to share it at their own expense. If there is no option for deceit, honesty isn't impressive at all. A crime suspect who is faced with overwhelming evidence against himself doesn't gain any admiration because he admits what is already known. And while we appreciate joyful people, it is really only those people who are joyful in difficult circumstances that really stand out. I mean, seriously, anybody can be happy when times are pleasant.
Consider, then, a world without adversity. No suffering, no problems, no hard times, no temptations. How nice! Except in this world you'd find no room for bravery because there is no fear. Compassion would be absent because compassion is the deep sympathy we feel for another who is stricken by misfortune. And so it goes. We may (out of compassion, ironically enough) long for a world where suffering and hard times don't exist. On the other hand, surrendering the best of human qualities to gain it might be a price too high.
I have only begun to list, but here's something that may be a little ... jolting to think about. Are you aware that almost all qualities that we admire require adversity to be valuable? Think about it. The character traits that we appreciate are only really worth anything when they are difficult to do.
Consider courage. Bravery is not the absence of fear, but the ability to face situations that cause fear. If there is no fear, there is no courage. One of the overarching traits is integrity. What is integrity? It is, in the most literal sense, "undivided". It is, then, adhering to moral and ethical principles as a whole. If that was second-nature, if there was no temptation, no concern about failing to adhere, then it would be meaningless. The generous aren't admired because they don't care about money (as an example), but because they know the value of it and consider others important enough to share it at their own expense. If there is no option for deceit, honesty isn't impressive at all. A crime suspect who is faced with overwhelming evidence against himself doesn't gain any admiration because he admits what is already known. And while we appreciate joyful people, it is really only those people who are joyful in difficult circumstances that really stand out. I mean, seriously, anybody can be happy when times are pleasant.
Consider, then, a world without adversity. No suffering, no problems, no hard times, no temptations. How nice! Except in this world you'd find no room for bravery because there is no fear. Compassion would be absent because compassion is the deep sympathy we feel for another who is stricken by misfortune. And so it goes. We may (out of compassion, ironically enough) long for a world where suffering and hard times don't exist. On the other hand, surrendering the best of human qualities to gain it might be a price too high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)