Not trying to be a troublemaker but, if something "makes sense", it ought to be explainable. IMO
I have a couple of Columbian friends. When we were growing up, & I was learning Spanish, from time to time I would ask them what a certain phrase meant, & they would say they couldn't explain it to me - the literal translation DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE in English. They were idioms.
Somebody probably knows where the term hot dog comes from, & how it came to mean what it does, but really, for someone from a different culture who wants to know what it is, who cares? It doesn't make sense; just tell me what it means.
Interesting perspective, Socks. Especially: 'God "allows" both good and bad to happen.'
It might help if every reader of the Bible remembers that s/he comes at it from his/her own cultural perspective - as they do everything else in the world. If you've traveled abroad you'll be aware of this. Even between similar cultures.
The perspectives of (say) an American and (say) a Japanese person and (say) a person from Nuie or Borneo (yes, those are real places) are miles apart. Culturally and physically. But who's to say which is right? Best? Different balances, because different needs.
This difference in ways of thinking often plays out where there is an indigenous group of people with immigrant populations (think: native Americans of all kinds, and current US population(s); aboriginal Australians followed by current mostly western-thinking population. There can be immense gaps in the perception of how land (in particular) is held, in spiritual / creation beliefs and in family ties/duty. Result: conflict, stress, disputes over land, oppression, perceived injustice.
When learning a foreign language there are often words that don't translate exactly; how much more a problem that is when we deal with translations of the Bible that are culturally, historically, and in language far from our own.
I do know S@ngat B@ins (ex WC) still teaches a lot of PFAL-type material in India but it's slanted rather differently because the people's way of thinking is different. (His own background, too.) It would be interesting to have a perspective from someone like him on the idiom of permission.
Why I have never heard it called this anywhere else the idea seems to be very common in faith circles like Kenneth Hagin, Derek Prince, Kenneth Copeland and others. The closest they get to calling it the idiom of permission is to say if you study this closely you will see that God doesn't cause the evil, but he allows the evil to take place. Which is basicly a rewording of the "idiom of permission." While the term is not used by them, the belief seems to be there.
I'm not familiar enough with mainstream Christian thought to offer any insight on the original question about whether other people believe this. But I'd like to toss my two cents' worth in and say that this is one of those Waybrain concepts I don't think holds up to careful scrutiny.
I understand the thinking behind it, which you have all presented well. But, as Twinky said, I think this is something that grows from the Western mindset that God is incapable of doing anything we would consider evil. We have defined the terms of goodness and therefore decided that God is incapable of violating those terms. As VP opined in PFAL, if God killed people there would be darkness in him and since the Bible says God is light and him is no darkness at all...well you know the pitch.
Here's the problem with that. The "idiom of permission" doesn't explain all the events in the Old Testament that our culture finds objectionable. It only addresses events were catastrophe came about by indirect action, i.e. a plaque, flood, or war. It doesn't explain passages like Numbers 31:12 - 18.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto 31:12 Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which [are] by Jordan [near] Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, [with] the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify [both] yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
Moses, the friend of God ordered the summary execution of a bunch of captured women and children. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones". These days, we would call those "little boys". He did let them keep the virgin girls, presumably to be raised as servants of some kind; today, we'd call that slavery.
Since this was a direct order from the prophet, it's impossible to interpret this as something God allowed the Devil to do. So the "idiom of permission" doesn't apply, unless we assume that Moses suddenly got possessed (demonized in Derek Prince terminology) and gave a commandment from the Devil.
That's possible (albeit highly unlikely), but the very next passage says God gave Moses revelation pertaining to the soldiers. The entire communication was about the dividing of the spoils. Not one word about the slain children. So we must assume that Moses' order to kill the boys and enslave the virgin girls was either directly from God or at least okay with God.
Side note: I find this passage especially interesting in light of the "pro-life" movement's assertion that aborting a fetus is murder and God hates it. If that's true, why would he order a bunch of living, breathing children to be killed as the spoils of war?
Anyway, passages like this indicate to me that our western standards of ethics cannot be applied to The Most High. It is folly for us to assume we know what God can and cannot do, will and will not do, should or should not do. This is the same kind of arrogance that lead Chris Geer, CES, and his followers to declare that God has no foreknowledge. They reasoned that, if God had known that Adam and Eve would sin, causing eons of human suffering, then He would be evil. But God can't do evil so He must not have known what would happen. I am among the legions of ex-TWI folk who find that notion preposterous. But if we accept the humanistic premise of the idiom of permission, we might well end up with a similarly ridiculous conclusion.
On the other hand, if you view the Bible as being nothing more than a collection of writings that have stood the test of time because they offer profound (but not infallible) wisdom regarding the human condition, you might actually take away a greater insight into humanity than by dancing around to The Idiom of Permission Polka,
is it possible that the god they held in such great reverence was just plain, out of his (or her) gourd insane?
IMHO, No, that is not possible. What is possible is that God's perspective and ours are not in agreement. Since He created us and everything else, if either party needs and attitude adjustment, it's us not Him.
it just seems to me.. the condescension, the idiom of permission, isn't this often used to soften what a reasonable person might interpret as insane acts?
I used a little "g" for a reason.
I'd go on, but yawl think I'm nuts enough as it is.
When you were a kid, did you ever try to rationalize the existence of Santa Claus? Oh, he must be real. Who else, besides my parents, knew I wanted those Engineer Boots? Same thing. We wanted some of this stuff, like the idiom of permission, to be real so we found ways to "explain" it.
Speaking of nuts, here's my nutty view of the book of Job. Job, as you know, is presented as exhibit A by the Idiom of Permission advocates because it shows bad things happening to a good man, other people attributing those events to God, but pulls back the divine curtain to reveal that it's really Satan doing all the evil.
But, as Nate has pointed out, the book of Job also says that God allowed Satan to do what he did. At one point, it says God admits that Satan moved him to destroy Job without cause.
Job 2:3 ...and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
That language is still a little murky ethically speaking, but it indicates that God did the destroying. But here's my nutty angle.
It wasn't just JOB who got hurt. A lot of other people whom we could call today innocent bystanders got destroyed. And they didn't get restored at the end of the story.
Job 1:14 And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:
1:15 And the Sabeans fell [upon them], and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:16 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:17 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:18 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters [were] eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Job was afflicted with boils but was healed. He was impoverished but his wealth was restored. Yet all of Job's sons and who knows how many servants died violently. And why? To prove that Job was righteous. To me, the basic lesson of the book of Job is that nothing is more important than righteousness. Not health, not happiness, not wealth, not life itself.
This is not really a radical idea. Jesus said the same thing in different terms. If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. So again, it's all a matter of perspective. From the modern Western perspective, these are acts of an insane ruler, a despot. From an eastern perspective (said the American) these are the acts of a righteous God who values nothing more than a heart of humility and love and integrity.
servants died violently. And why? To prove that Job was righteous. To me, the basic lesson of the book of Job is that nothing is more important than righteousness. Not health, not happiness, not wealth, not life itself.
so the children and servants were "expendable"?
Just so much raw material to expend to prove Job's righteousness?
I mean.. these were living souls were they not?
Did they deserve this? Or is it possible.. that they merely AGREED to this?
Just so much raw material to expend to prove Job's righteousness?
I mean.. these were living souls were they not?
Did they deserve this? Or is it possible.. that they merely AGREED to this?
Just a few questions.
Did someone promise Job's servants a long and prosperous life? Women and children suffer and die everyday. Do they deserve that? People still die of hunger and easily curable disease in many parts of the world......do you think they agree to that? Are they expendable? Did someone promise us 80 years of easy living and I missed it? If only there were some keys to an abundant and long pain free life.......a way to hold God's feet to the fire and give us our due!! If someone put that info all together in a class, that is a class I would take.
God didn't even spare His only begotten and beloved Son the suffering and agony of the cross. What is up with that?
The man born blind for God's glory.....I doubt being blind in that culture would have been his first choice.
But maybe, ......when we catch a small glimpse of God's glory and His righteousness our perspective about what life means changes. We are quick to judge God according to our moral standards.....but what if the purpose of our life is to glorify God. What if we are actually fulfilled in this purpose? Then living and dying for His righteousness takes on a whole new meaning.
The book of Job doesn't prove Job's righteousness.....it shows there is no one who is righteous including Job. Job saw God and ended up stopping his gums from flapping and repented. The book of Job reveals God's righteousness. When Job saw God, he had nothing to say but "I am sorry". After all his suffering and tragedy he didn't march up to God and complain.........call him unfair or a despot......Job said....
"I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
"You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
It does all come down to perspective. How do you know that they were not created for that one purpose .... to glorify God? Is that purpose greater than living 80 years with some prosperity and health? That depends on what you believe about God I guess. How do you know that they don't have eternal life now in the presence of His glory.....fulfilled and complete in His love? God is Just, but not according to our standards, but His.
When I was in the Navy forty years ago, we had to learn operating and casualty procedures. Our examinations were oral, and we would be presented with fictional, hypothetical situations. We would be graded on the responses we gave.
When I was studying business management thirty years ago, the profs would give us fictional, hypothetical case studies to analyse and comment on.
The advantage of fictional, hypothetical case studies is that they allow people to consider a highly complex situation with all the extraneous material stripped away. They allow the student to focus on the essentials of the case, without being distracted by the accidentals. Fictional, hypothetical case studies are most useful when considering problems that don't have any easy, yes-or-no answers.
I am persuaded that the book of Job is a fictional, hypothetical case study examining the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I would give Wierwille an F for his "Victim to Victor" analysis, wherever he cribbed it from.
What evidence do we have that Job is fiction?
One thing to consider is its literary form. The main arguments are presented in the form of didactic poetry, with brief prose brackets at the beginning and the end. Chapters one and two are prose prologue. The book is poetic from the beginning of chapter three to verse 42:6. Verses 42:7 through the end constitute a prose epilogue. The Old Testament doesn't ordinarily use poetic form to present straight history or biography.
The book makes extensive use of irony, which is even more apparent in the Hebrew than in the English, or so I've been told, not reading Hebrew myself. One definition of irony is using words in such a way that they imply a meaning in opposition to their literal meaning. As you can imagine, the use of irony in the Bible raises problems for fundamentalist literalism.
Despite all the comforters' religious blather, their use of which God does not agree with, Job receives no definitive answer to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" In my opinion, the whole point of Job comes down to verse 13:15a, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him..." I think this verse was one of the things Jesus was considering in the garden of Gethsemene.
It's interesting to note that the account of creation given in Job contains elements that do not appear in the Genesis account.
I don't think God allowed a real Job (or his kids and servants) to suffer on a bet made with the adversary. The book has to present Job as suffering, but it doesn't want to give away the punch line, that we cannot yet understand why bad things happen to good people. So the bet with the adversary is presented as a literary device in the prose prologue. Job also receives his reward, not in the poetic, teaching section of the book, but in the prose epilogue.
CES was so intent on the idea that God is not responsible for evil that they ended up with a God who is totally irresponsible. I think that was a logical extension of Wierwille's (or was it Bullinger's?) idiom of permission, and I don't think it's accurate.
As to the book of Job, I understand it is commonly considered as a sort of play, poetry, fictional consideration of something serious. Not that a real Job existed at all.
As for the record cited from Numbers - and many other records of tribal wars in the OT going into the Promised Land ... difficult. Part of the "sins of the fathers" stuff? Even if their sins made these racial groups "worthy of death" is it not also the will of God, who does not change and has no shadow of turning, that "all men be saved"? Then this will of God would surely also apply in the OT as well, yes? How then can they be saved and come to a knowledge of God if they are dead?
Far too simplistic to say that God "removed his hand of protection" from them or "allowed" the devil to have his way with them - ie, to kill and destroy them.
And that's not even starting with more indirect events - seas crashing over pursuers, city walls collapsing...
I do not think this idiom forms a very significant part of most theological study or training. Nobody else seems to have heard of it, outside anyone who's been associated with TWI.
I don't know if Job is fiction or not, but Satan did demand to sift Peter....I think that verse in Luke indicates all the disciples actually. As difficult as it is to be sifted......it reveals our faith and it teaches us. As painful as it can be.......it beats being ignored and left with a misguided faith. Sifting serves a purpose.
The scriptures don't use mild words in regard to faith......tested as fire....trials, tribulation, suffering, persecution, being purified, perfected, martyrs......Jesus said to count the cost and that there would be suffering. How we ignored all that and focused on a few verses reveals what kind of faith we were embracing IMO.
If our faith fails in the midst of trial ....... it is God's grace, goodness, and mercy at work in revealing that to us. We can pray for saving faith.
I don't know if Job is fiction or not, but Satan did demand to sift Peter....I think that verse in Luke indicates all the disciples actually. As difficult as it is to be sifted......it reveals our faith and it teaches us. As painful as it can be.......it beats being ignored and left with a misguided faith. Sifting serves a purpose.
The scriptures don't use mild words in regard to faith......tested as fire....trials, tribulation, suffering, persecution, being purified, perfected, martyrs......Jesus said to count the cost and that there would be suffering. How we ignored all that and focused on a few verses reveals what kind of faith
If our faith fails in the midst of trial ....... it is God's grace, goodness, and mercy at work in revealing that to us. We can pray for saving faith.
I think your list is just a few of the things missing in TWI doctrine... It seems in TWI theology those concepts do not exist.
Without it you can't understand the faith described in scripture or why the apostles had that non-abundant life.
...The book of Job doesn't prove Job's righteousness.....it shows there is no one who is righteous including Job. Job saw God and ended up stopping his gums from flapping and repented. The book of Job reveals God's righteousness. When Job saw God, he had nothing to say but "I am sorry". After all his suffering and tragedy he didn't march up to God and complain.........call him unfair or a despot......Job said....
"I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
"You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
I stand corrected. How about if we substitute the words "perfect and upright"? The fact that Job was perfect and upright in the sight of God is the whole point of the story. Satan accused Job of only loving and serving God because of his abundant life. God said Job was a unique man, perfect and upright, a man who feared God and eschewed evil. Apparently this was something noteworthy and important to God because he broached the subject with Beezlebub.
Job 1:8 And 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?
So the fact that Job was perfect and upright was a matter of Job's integrity, not a matter of circumstance. To prove that point, God allowed (or caused, depending on your point of view) Satan to horribly afflict Job and slaughter his children and servants. So what was more important? Proving that one man feared God just because he was a good man, or keeping all those people from suffering pain and death?
Think about Aesop's Fables for a moment...The Tortoise and the Hare, The Ant and the Grasshopper, The Fox and the Grapes...We know that tortoises don't race hares, ants don't talk to grasshoppers and foxes don't operate logical thought. Still, we have no problem accepting that these fables contain valuable lessons. But, when it comes to the Bible, there is a school of thought that says it has to be factual to have any value. I don't know what Job's intended message is. What I do know is that if you get too bogged down with whether or not it was a real, historical incident, you will probably miss the point, just as worrying about whether ants can talk to grasshoppers will distract you from the message of that story.
Did someone promise Job's servants a long and prosperous life? Women and children suffer and die everyday. Do they deserve that? People still die of hunger and easily curable disease in many parts of the world......do you think they agree to that? Are they expendable? Did someone promise us 80 years of easy living and I missed it? If only there were some keys to an abundant and long pain free life.......a way to hold God's feet to the fire and give us our due!! If someone put that info all together in a class, that is a class I would take.
God didn't even spare His only begotten and beloved Son the suffering and agony of the cross. What is up with that?
The man born blind for God's glory.....I doubt being blind in that culture would have been his first choice.
But maybe, ......when we catch a small glimpse of God's glory and His righteousness our perspective about what life means changes. We are quick to judge God according to our moral standards.....but what if the purpose of our life is to glorify God. What if we are actually fulfilled in this purpose? Then living and dying for His righteousness takes on a whole new meaning.
The book of Job doesn't prove Job's righteousness.....it shows there is no one who is righteous including Job. Job saw God and ended up stopping his gums from flapping and repented. The book of Job reveals God's righteousness. When Job saw God, he had nothing to say but "I am sorry". After all his suffering and tragedy he didn't march up to God and complain.........call him unfair or a despot......Job said....
"I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
"You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
It does all come down to perspective. How do you know that they were not created for that one purpose .... to glorify God? Is that purpose greater than living 80 years with some prosperity and health? That depends on what you believe about God I guess. How do you know that they don't have eternal life now in the presence of His glory.....fulfilled and complete in His love? God is Just, but not according to our standards, but His.
thanks for your kind comments.
the problem I have with the religion is.. when things go "wrong" so to speak, out come the excuses. Idiom of permission, various euphemisms..
It just seems to me, that most of the euphemisms and idioms attempt to attribute logic to a god which may not be exactly logical (human characteristic)..
I'd say a lot more, but I'll try to stay on topic here..
"the problem I have with the religion is.. when things go "wrong" so to speak, out come the excuses. Idiom of permission, various euphemisms."
Bingo!
Can't find an explanation for God's actions in Job? No problem, we'll just invent one. Maybe call it the idiom of permission or something. Man's mind works in such a way that it doesn't fancy entertaining unresolvable problems for long periods of time, especially problems that are counter-purpose to previously held beliefs. ..Enter cognitive dissonance.
Man's mind works in such a way that it doesn't fancy entertaining unresolvable problems for long periods of time,
some of us have evolved beyond that..
evolved? I dunno. Maybe that is not an apt description..
maybe.. compelled?
maybe everybody needs that kind of experience.. you know. One look at some kind of light, and everything melts away, just shy of leaving this existence..
I abhor certainty, or the claim for it, anymore..
Why settle for certainty, when one can have a real direction to go in..
One of them is from a dream when I was young.. very young.
There was some construction down the street where I lived. There was a mound of sand, the neighborhood kids were playing with the sand. They had their little toy cranes, dumptrucks.. that is the real part of life. In the dream, it became a mound of nickels, dimes, quarters, half-dollars. All I could carry off, I could have..
so what does that tell me. I'll never be rich. No hundred dollar bills.. no cash hoard..
but all I really NEED, to carry off as I wish. So I'll never exactly starve, will I..
isn't that enough certainty? What more could I really want.. as far as THIS existence is concerned?
I'm speaking as regards to physical existence..
If I was greedy, I'd write a few computer programs to work with finances, and rape and pillage some people's retirement accounts and pensions.. and social security..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
19
16
19
Popular Days
Mar 15
14
Mar 19
11
Nov 8
10
Mar 14
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
WordWolf 19 posts
Ham 16 posts
Twinky 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 15 2012
14 posts
Mar 19 2012
11 posts
Nov 8 2023
10 posts
Mar 14 2012
9 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem ri
Raf
I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no gua
WordWolf
That's pretty much the same principle we see in effect when Gideon's discussed. He overthrew Baal's altar, and when people protested, he complained that BAAL should protest, since BAAL is the one who
Posted Images
Tom
I have a couple of Columbian friends. When we were growing up, & I was learning Spanish, from time to time I would ask them what a certain phrase meant, & they would say they couldn't explain it to me - the literal translation DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE in English. They were idioms.
Somebody probably knows where the term hot dog comes from, & how it came to mean what it does, but really, for someone from a different culture who wants to know what it is, who cares? It doesn't make sense; just tell me what it means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting perspective, Socks. Especially: 'God "allows" both good and bad to happen.'
It might help if every reader of the Bible remembers that s/he comes at it from his/her own cultural perspective - as they do everything else in the world. If you've traveled abroad you'll be aware of this. Even between similar cultures.
The perspectives of (say) an American and (say) a Japanese person and (say) a person from Nuie or Borneo (yes, those are real places) are miles apart. Culturally and physically. But who's to say which is right? Best? Different balances, because different needs.
This difference in ways of thinking often plays out where there is an indigenous group of people with immigrant populations (think: native Americans of all kinds, and current US population(s); aboriginal Australians followed by current mostly western-thinking population. There can be immense gaps in the perception of how land (in particular) is held, in spiritual / creation beliefs and in family ties/duty. Result: conflict, stress, disputes over land, oppression, perceived injustice.
When learning a foreign language there are often words that don't translate exactly; how much more a problem that is when we deal with translations of the Bible that are culturally, historically, and in language far from our own.
I do know S@ngat B@ins (ex WC) still teaches a lot of PFAL-type material in India but it's slanted rather differently because the people's way of thinking is different. (His own background, too.) It would be interesting to have a perspective from someone like him on the idiom of permission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
Why I have never heard it called this anywhere else the idea seems to be very common in faith circles like Kenneth Hagin, Derek Prince, Kenneth Copeland and others. The closest they get to calling it the idiom of permission is to say if you study this closely you will see that God doesn't cause the evil, but he allows the evil to take place. Which is basicly a rewording of the "idiom of permission." While the term is not used by them, the belief seems to be there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I'm not familiar enough with mainstream Christian thought to offer any insight on the original question about whether other people believe this. But I'd like to toss my two cents' worth in and say that this is one of those Waybrain concepts I don't think holds up to careful scrutiny.
I understand the thinking behind it, which you have all presented well. But, as Twinky said, I think this is something that grows from the Western mindset that God is incapable of doing anything we would consider evil. We have defined the terms of goodness and therefore decided that God is incapable of violating those terms. As VP opined in PFAL, if God killed people there would be darkness in him and since the Bible says God is light and him is no darkness at all...well you know the pitch.
Here's the problem with that. The "idiom of permission" doesn't explain all the events in the Old Testament that our culture finds objectionable. It only addresses events were catastrophe came about by indirect action, i.e. a plaque, flood, or war. It doesn't explain passages like Numbers 31:12 - 18.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto 31:12 Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which [are] by Jordan [near] Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, [with] the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify [both] yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
Moses, the friend of God ordered the summary execution of a bunch of captured women and children. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones". These days, we would call those "little boys". He did let them keep the virgin girls, presumably to be raised as servants of some kind; today, we'd call that slavery.
Since this was a direct order from the prophet, it's impossible to interpret this as something God allowed the Devil to do. So the "idiom of permission" doesn't apply, unless we assume that Moses suddenly got possessed (demonized in Derek Prince terminology) and gave a commandment from the Devil.
That's possible (albeit highly unlikely), but the very next passage says God gave Moses revelation pertaining to the soldiers. The entire communication was about the dividing of the spoils. Not one word about the slain children. So we must assume that Moses' order to kill the boys and enslave the virgin girls was either directly from God or at least okay with God.
Side note: I find this passage especially interesting in light of the "pro-life" movement's assertion that aborting a fetus is murder and God hates it. If that's true, why would he order a bunch of living, breathing children to be killed as the spoils of war?
Anyway, passages like this indicate to me that our western standards of ethics cannot be applied to The Most High. It is folly for us to assume we know what God can and cannot do, will and will not do, should or should not do. This is the same kind of arrogance that lead Chris Geer, CES, and his followers to declare that God has no foreknowledge. They reasoned that, if God had known that Adam and Eve would sin, causing eons of human suffering, then He would be evil. But God can't do evil so He must not have known what would happen. I am among the legions of ex-TWI folk who find that notion preposterous. But if we accept the humanistic premise of the idiom of permission, we might well end up with a similarly ridiculous conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
On the other hand, if you view the Bible as being nothing more than a collection of writings that have stood the test of time because they offer profound (but not infallible) wisdom regarding the human condition, you might actually take away a greater insight into humanity than by dancing around to The Idiom of Permission Polka,
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Killing young children.. women.. hmm.
is it possible that the god they held in such great reverence was just plain, out of his (or her) gourd insane?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
IMHO, No, that is not possible. What is possible is that God's perspective and ours are not in agreement. Since He created us and everything else, if either party needs and attitude adjustment, it's us not Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
but who is it to say..
it just seems to me.. the condescension, the idiom of permission, isn't this often used to soften what a reasonable person might interpret as insane acts?
I used a little "g" for a reason.
I'd go on, but yawl think I'm nuts enough as it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I mean.. "sanity" is a human thought, isn't it?
how can you attribute a human attribute to the Almighty..
these questions don't bother me much. I already know everything I ever believed or hoped to believe was just plain wrong..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When you were a kid, did you ever try to rationalize the existence of Santa Claus? Oh, he must be real. Who else, besides my parents, knew I wanted those Engineer Boots? Same thing. We wanted some of this stuff, like the idiom of permission, to be real so we found ways to "explain" it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Speaking of nuts, here's my nutty view of the book of Job. Job, as you know, is presented as exhibit A by the Idiom of Permission advocates because it shows bad things happening to a good man, other people attributing those events to God, but pulls back the divine curtain to reveal that it's really Satan doing all the evil.
But, as Nate has pointed out, the book of Job also says that God allowed Satan to do what he did. At one point, it says God admits that Satan moved him to destroy Job without cause.
Job 2:3 ...and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
That language is still a little murky ethically speaking, but it indicates that God did the destroying. But here's my nutty angle.
It wasn't just JOB who got hurt. A lot of other people whom we could call today innocent bystanders got destroyed. And they didn't get restored at the end of the story.
Job 1:14 And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:
1:15 And the Sabeans fell [upon them], and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:16 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:17 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:18 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters [were] eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Job was afflicted with boils but was healed. He was impoverished but his wealth was restored. Yet all of Job's sons and who knows how many servants died violently. And why? To prove that Job was righteous. To me, the basic lesson of the book of Job is that nothing is more important than righteousness. Not health, not happiness, not wealth, not life itself.
This is not really a radical idea. Jesus said the same thing in different terms. If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. So again, it's all a matter of perspective. From the modern Western perspective, these are acts of an insane ruler, a despot. From an eastern perspective (said the American) these are the acts of a righteous God who values nothing more than a heart of humility and love and integrity.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Job was afflicted
so the children and servants were "expendable"?
Just so much raw material to expend to prove Job's righteousness?
I mean.. these were living souls were they not?
Did they deserve this? Or is it possible.. that they merely AGREED to this?
Just a few questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Did someone promise Job's servants a long and prosperous life? Women and children suffer and die everyday. Do they deserve that? People still die of hunger and easily curable disease in many parts of the world......do you think they agree to that? Are they expendable? Did someone promise us 80 years of easy living and I missed it? If only there were some keys to an abundant and long pain free life.......a way to hold God's feet to the fire and give us our due!! If someone put that info all together in a class, that is a class I would take.
God didn't even spare His only begotten and beloved Son the suffering and agony of the cross. What is up with that?
The man born blind for God's glory.....I doubt being blind in that culture would have been his first choice.
But maybe, ......when we catch a small glimpse of God's glory and His righteousness our perspective about what life means changes. We are quick to judge God according to our moral standards.....but what if the purpose of our life is to glorify God. What if we are actually fulfilled in this purpose? Then living and dying for His righteousness takes on a whole new meaning.
The book of Job doesn't prove Job's righteousness.....it shows there is no one who is righteous including Job. Job saw God and ended up stopping his gums from flapping and repented. The book of Job reveals God's righteousness. When Job saw God, he had nothing to say but "I am sorry". After all his suffering and tragedy he didn't march up to God and complain.........call him unfair or a despot......Job said....
"I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
"You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
It does all come down to perspective. How do you know that they were not created for that one purpose .... to glorify God? Is that purpose greater than living 80 years with some prosperity and health? That depends on what you believe about God I guess. How do you know that they don't have eternal life now in the presence of His glory.....fulfilled and complete in His love? God is Just, but not according to our standards, but His.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
When I was in the Navy forty years ago, we had to learn operating and casualty procedures. Our examinations were oral, and we would be presented with fictional, hypothetical situations. We would be graded on the responses we gave.
When I was studying business management thirty years ago, the profs would give us fictional, hypothetical case studies to analyse and comment on.
The advantage of fictional, hypothetical case studies is that they allow people to consider a highly complex situation with all the extraneous material stripped away. They allow the student to focus on the essentials of the case, without being distracted by the accidentals. Fictional, hypothetical case studies are most useful when considering problems that don't have any easy, yes-or-no answers.
I am persuaded that the book of Job is a fictional, hypothetical case study examining the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I would give Wierwille an F for his "Victim to Victor" analysis, wherever he cribbed it from.
What evidence do we have that Job is fiction?
One thing to consider is its literary form. The main arguments are presented in the form of didactic poetry, with brief prose brackets at the beginning and the end. Chapters one and two are prose prologue. The book is poetic from the beginning of chapter three to verse 42:6. Verses 42:7 through the end constitute a prose epilogue. The Old Testament doesn't ordinarily use poetic form to present straight history or biography.
The book makes extensive use of irony, which is even more apparent in the Hebrew than in the English, or so I've been told, not reading Hebrew myself. One definition of irony is using words in such a way that they imply a meaning in opposition to their literal meaning. As you can imagine, the use of irony in the Bible raises problems for fundamentalist literalism.
Despite all the comforters' religious blather, their use of which God does not agree with, Job receives no definitive answer to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" In my opinion, the whole point of Job comes down to verse 13:15a, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him..." I think this verse was one of the things Jesus was considering in the garden of Gethsemene.
It's interesting to note that the account of creation given in Job contains elements that do not appear in the Genesis account.
I don't think God allowed a real Job (or his kids and servants) to suffer on a bet made with the adversary. The book has to present Job as suffering, but it doesn't want to give away the punch line, that we cannot yet understand why bad things happen to good people. So the bet with the adversary is presented as a literary device in the prose prologue. Job also receives his reward, not in the poetic, teaching section of the book, but in the prose epilogue.
CES was so intent on the idea that God is not responsible for evil that they ended up with a God who is totally irresponsible. I think that was a logical extension of Wierwille's (or was it Bullinger's?) idiom of permission, and I don't think it's accurate.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thanks, all, for your fine comments.
As to the book of Job, I understand it is commonly considered as a sort of play, poetry, fictional consideration of something serious. Not that a real Job existed at all.
As for the record cited from Numbers - and many other records of tribal wars in the OT going into the Promised Land ... difficult. Part of the "sins of the fathers" stuff? Even if their sins made these racial groups "worthy of death" is it not also the will of God, who does not change and has no shadow of turning, that "all men be saved"? Then this will of God would surely also apply in the OT as well, yes? How then can they be saved and come to a knowledge of God if they are dead?
Far too simplistic to say that God "removed his hand of protection" from them or "allowed" the devil to have his way with them - ie, to kill and destroy them.
And that's not even starting with more indirect events - seas crashing over pursuers, city walls collapsing...
I do not think this idiom forms a very significant part of most theological study or training. Nobody else seems to have heard of it, outside anyone who's been associated with TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I don't know if Job is fiction or not, but Satan did demand to sift Peter....I think that verse in Luke indicates all the disciples actually. As difficult as it is to be sifted......it reveals our faith and it teaches us. As painful as it can be.......it beats being ignored and left with a misguided faith. Sifting serves a purpose.
The scriptures don't use mild words in regard to faith......tested as fire....trials, tribulation, suffering, persecution, being purified, perfected, martyrs......Jesus said to count the cost and that there would be suffering. How we ignored all that and focused on a few verses reveals what kind of faith we were embracing IMO.
If our faith fails in the midst of trial ....... it is God's grace, goodness, and mercy at work in revealing that to us. We can pray for saving faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I think your list is just a few of the things missing in TWI doctrine... It seems in TWI theology those concepts do not exist.
Without it you can't understand the faith described in scripture or why the apostles had that non-abundant life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I stand corrected. How about if we substitute the words "perfect and upright"? The fact that Job was perfect and upright in the sight of God is the whole point of the story. Satan accused Job of only loving and serving God because of his abundant life. God said Job was a unique man, perfect and upright, a man who feared God and eschewed evil. Apparently this was something noteworthy and important to God because he broached the subject with Beezlebub.
Job 1:8 And 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?
So the fact that Job was perfect and upright was a matter of Job's integrity, not a matter of circumstance. To prove that point, God allowed (or caused, depending on your point of view) Satan to horribly afflict Job and slaughter his children and servants. So what was more important? Proving that one man feared God just because he was a good man, or keeping all those people from suffering pain and death?
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Think about Aesop's Fables for a moment...The Tortoise and the Hare, The Ant and the Grasshopper, The Fox and the Grapes...We know that tortoises don't race hares, ants don't talk to grasshoppers and foxes don't operate logical thought. Still, we have no problem accepting that these fables contain valuable lessons. But, when it comes to the Bible, there is a school of thought that says it has to be factual to have any value. I don't know what Job's intended message is. What I do know is that if you get too bogged down with whether or not it was a real, historical incident, you will probably miss the point, just as worrying about whether ants can talk to grasshoppers will distract you from the message of that story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
thanks for your kind comments.
the problem I have with the religion is.. when things go "wrong" so to speak, out come the excuses. Idiom of permission, various euphemisms..
It just seems to me, that most of the euphemisms and idioms attempt to attribute logic to a god which may not be exactly logical (human characteristic)..
I'd say a lot more, but I'll try to stay on topic here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"the problem I have with the religion is.. when things go "wrong" so to speak, out come the excuses. Idiom of permission, various euphemisms."
Bingo!
Can't find an explanation for God's actions in Job? No problem, we'll just invent one. Maybe call it the idiom of permission or something. Man's mind works in such a way that it doesn't fancy entertaining unresolvable problems for long periods of time, especially problems that are counter-purpose to previously held beliefs. ..Enter cognitive dissonance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
some of us have evolved beyond that..
evolved? I dunno. Maybe that is not an apt description..
maybe.. compelled?
maybe everybody needs that kind of experience.. you know. One look at some kind of light, and everything melts away, just shy of leaving this existence..
I abhor certainty, or the claim for it, anymore..
Why settle for certainty, when one can have a real direction to go in..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
But...if you don't have certainty, how do you have "real direction"? I'm not following you there Ham.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Certainty? One runs in the nearest direction..
I have a few certainties.
One of them is from a dream when I was young.. very young.
There was some construction down the street where I lived. There was a mound of sand, the neighborhood kids were playing with the sand. They had their little toy cranes, dumptrucks.. that is the real part of life. In the dream, it became a mound of nickels, dimes, quarters, half-dollars. All I could carry off, I could have..
so what does that tell me. I'll never be rich. No hundred dollar bills.. no cash hoard..
but all I really NEED, to carry off as I wish. So I'll never exactly starve, will I..
isn't that enough certainty? What more could I really want.. as far as THIS existence is concerned?
I'm speaking as regards to physical existence..
If I was greedy, I'd write a few computer programs to work with finances, and rape and pillage some people's retirement accounts and pensions.. and social security..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.