Idiom of Permission

[Ham]

every decade I have become something that I had no clue that I would become the decade before.. where is the certainty in that?

One decade I became a husband and father.. I washed windows, cleaned dishes..

it was really fun.

The next.. I became some kind of electronics expert.

The next.. I moved from taking to giving. I used electronic knowledge to give back to the community.. I became a ham radio operator..

the next decade.. I became a mathematician..

this decade, I'm trying to figure out how to teach math.. becoming some kind of professor?

now what. No idea.. but each step along the way has not been exactly logical.

I feel like every ten years or so, I've peeled off one more layer after another..

weird, huh..

[Ham]

I know where the dream ends. I have seen it..

just not sure about the timing, or exact details..

[geisha779]

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?

I actually didn't mean to correct you....I was responding to Ham. To be honest, after my past experience with you on this forum.....I would never dare engage you by correcting you.

As Job understood it.....the Lord gives and the Lord takes away....blessed be the name of the Lord. But, I guess I don't really understand your question because I don't believe, with the exception of Enoch, that God does keep us from seeing death or from pain and suffering. Jesus went so far as to promise it. I think God did add a few years to some depressed King's life...his name escapes me....but, everyone is appointed once to die and no one escapes pain in this life. Jesus, the only truly innocent servant suffered a horrible and humiliating death.

Is it when they died that is in question? How they died? Or is it why they died? People die for stupid reasons everyday....people die tragically.....people die too early. To have your life and death reveal God's glory......if even just to one lost soul......that doesn't seem worthy to you? Are you asking if that is a waste of life? Here we are discussing and examining it all these years later.

I sense that it all comes down to what you believe about God and His righteousness and glory.

Proving Job was a good guy isn't the point of the story....God is the point. Job never did anything wrong that we can see....but he still ended up repenting before God. Why do you think that is? He never cursed God, he never foolishly charged God...he properly grieved...... he kept his faith. Yet, when he saw God......he still repented. He saw something that made him want to keep silent.

[Jbarrax]

I guess I see it as a matter of cause and effect. The effect we're chatting about is the sudden deaths of all of Job's sons and servants. The cause is that Satan moved God to 'destroy them without cause'. Why did He do that? To prove that Job didn't fear God just because he had a cushy life.

I never meant to imply that their deaths were unjust or that God is unjust. I'm only pointing out something in the Old Testament that flies in the face of VP and Bullinger's idiom of permission. The idiom doesn't hold water because its underlying assumptions are not necessarily well grounded in Biblical truths. Although it's terrible when people die, especially as a direct result of events beyond their control, it doesn't automatically mean God is not Holy and Just and Good. It just means maybe there are more important issues at play.

I think we're looking at opposite ends of the proverbial elephant, not necessarily disagreeing, just talking about the same issue, saying almost exactly the same thing, but from different perspectives.

It's all about perspectives.

But, as I said when I started this tangential conversation, it's a somewhat radical notion so I'm not prepared to argue the point.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Jbarrax

[Tom]

I sense that it all comes down to what you believe about God and His righteousness and glory.

Hi geisha,

IMO, you did a superlative job of describing what is perceived as a contradiction between grace & works, but is not. I'm sorry I couldn't find the exact post - that would have improved the compliment, but the compliment is sincere.

Tom

[Abigail]

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.

This thread is very interesting to me. I haven't given much conscious thought to the notion of the idiom of permission, although my studies in Judaism have certainly undone my believe in that theory.

I am with you on this one. I think we apply our own standards and perspetives on these verses and try to make them fit what we already believe. But in truth, I think God does play a role in things that we would consider to be atrocities. I don't understand the whys and sometimes I get really ticked off at God for those things. But then again, Moses, Abraham, many of the great prophets argued with God. I think that tells us that in our relationship with Him, it is okay to disagree, get angry, hash it out, etc.

In the end, I'd have to leave it simpy at "all things work together for good to them that love God." and say I don't understand it, but I have to have faith that in the end, it will work together for good towards whatever God's purpose is.

[Abigail]

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?

The sins of the fathers are passed down to the children. Research family dynamics and it becomings glaringly clear. Abuse your children and odds are very high that they will grow up to become abusers or will grow up and continue to be abused in their adult relationships. Have a parent who is an alcoholic and you greatly increase the odds that the child will be as well.

How can they be saved? Maybe they can't? Maybe God in His foreknowledge already knew that for some, there is no saving them - - free will. Or maybe there is another life after this one, where one can come to find that salvation - or maybe . . . .

[Ham]

I think the big problem is trying to shove an Infinite God into a well behaved, logical, sane, predictable package..

I wonder what it is like to be normal, predictable, well behaved, logical, and self-contained for an eternity..

I can be that. Well, for a few moments at a time..

maybe at least when it counts..

[Ham]

There are so many other schools of thought.

Life was not very "interesting" when there was no male or female designation..

[WordWolf]

I think the big problem is trying to shove an Infinite God into a well behaved, logical, sane, predictable package..

I wonder what it is like to be normal, predictable, well behaved, logical, and self-contained for an eternity..

I can be that. Well, for a few moments at a time..

maybe at least when it counts..

I think the big problem is trying to figure something out when you lack both the experience

and the brain-power to even identify the questions.

It's easy to look at a limited picture and conclude acts are non-loving.

There's a small child. He trusts his parents and loves them. They take him to a place,

and sharp needles are jabbed into his arms.

Does he stop loving them? Does he think, or feel, they just did something to hurt him?

Can he possibly understand he's just been vaccinated to spare him possibly months of

suffering?

I think the small child has a better chance of understanding than we do in this discussion.

[Steve Lortz]

Well put, WordWolf, very well put!

Love,

Steve

[Naten00]

I really do not see any evidence in the wording to suggest that the devil did the evils...

I think of the plagues by God and God thwarting the free will of Pharaoh and God saying he is doing this for His name sake.... He drowned a lot of people and killed a lot of 1st borns..

Or when Habakkuk was complaining to God about the sin of Israel and God said he was going to do something that...... NO ONE would beleive... He said he was going to send the Chaledians for punishment....

I do not see anything to suggest the devil was behind anything...

Lamintations 3:

 37 Who can speak and have it happen

   if the Lord has not decreed it?

38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High

   that both calamities and good things come?

39 Why should the living complain

   when punished for their sins?

God has made it pretty clear that nothing happens without His approval. Even if the devil was behind it in the OT God knew it and allowed it.... He did nothing to stop it when He could have...

I do not understand God But to say calamities do not come from God is to say that The Prophet Jeremiah was not speaking for Him.

[waysider]

It will all come together for you when you take The Advanced Class.

P.S. (You probably need to speak in tongues more and get your believing up.)

[Naten00]

It will all come together for you when you take The Advanced Class.

P.S. (You probably need to speak in tongues more and get your believing up.)

Mabie I should shell out the bucks to take one.... I wonder if they will give you ur money back if they kick you out???

[waysider]

Mabie I should shell out the bucks to take one.... I wonder if they will give you ur money back if they kick you out???

Oh, sure. It comes with a "double your money back" guarantee.

[Twinky]

I really do not see any evidence in the wording to suggest that the devil did the evils...

I think of the plagues by God and God thwarting the free will of Pharaoh and God saying he is doing this for His name sake.... He drowned a lot of people and killed a lot of 1st borns..

Or when Habakkuk was complaining to God about the sin of Israel and God said he was going to do something that...... NO ONE would beleive... He said he was going to send the Chaledians for punishment....

I do not see anything to suggest the devil was behind anything...

Lamintations 3:

37 Who can speak and have it happen

if the Lord has not decreed it?

38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High

that both calamities and good things come?

39 Why should the living complain

when punished for their sins?

God has made it pretty clear that nothing happens without His approval. Even if the devil was behind it in the OT God knew it and allowed it.... He did nothing to stop it when He could have...

I do not understand God But to say calamities do not come from God is to say that The Prophet Jeremiah was not speaking for Him.

That is exactly the "idiom of permission."

Which, in Wayspeak, is throughout the OT because the devil's work was hidden. The people didn't know about the devil because they were not so spiritually aware. Rather than give the devil the credit (?) for the catastrophe, God ascribed it to Himself. [i'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, just reporting Wayspeak.]

But in the NT, JC exposed the workings of the devil and Paul says we are not to be ignorant of the wiles of the devil.

Somebody earlier said that it's because we don't have a big enough picture.

[Ham]

I think the big problem is trying to figure something out when you lack both the experience

and the brain-power to even identify the questions.

It's easy to look at a limited picture and conclude acts are non-loving.

There's a small child. He trusts his parents and loves them. They take him to a place,

and sharp needles are jabbed into his arms.

Does he stop loving them? Does he think, or feel, they just did something to hurt him?

Can he possibly understand he's just been vaccinated to spare him possibly months of

suffering?

I think the small child has a better chance of understanding than we do in this discussion.

Thank you for your kind words. Even though we are using *slightly* different vocabulary, I think we practically agree on all points here..

what kind of experience and brain power does one need.. well..

seems the more one has, the less one has..

[Ham]

There's a small child. He trusts his parents and loves them. They take him to a place,

and sharp needles are jabbed into his arms.

try this when the child requires about a hundred or so shots of steroids to survive a massive response to exposure to poison ivy. Yeah, that was me.

I knew they loved me.. but after a few exposures to a number of dull re-used needles in the early sixties..

they would have to catch me, to be partly able to administer the remedies.

To this day, I attribute these events to one of the reasons I would never become a heroin addict. Anyone who would voluntarily use a needle to add some medical substance intravenously to their blood stream.. is just plain nuts.

[waysider]

I understand the point of the needle analogy but I can't completely agree. With the needles, you have an active role in taking the child to receive the treatments. With the idiom of permission, God doesn't actively do anything.

That's the crucial point. He doesn't do anything, He simply permits it.

Leave da one true houseboat and God will "permit" the devil to have his way with you.

Edited March 20, 2012 by waysider

[Steve Lortz]

Sometimes a person can have an idea that turns everything he understands completely inside out.

I think I experienced one of those ideas during the time I had decided it was time to throw out the TWI baby WITH the bath water, because the baby was in actuality a mis-begotten child of hell.

Wierwille said that SOMETHING had to die in the day Adam and Eve sinned, or the Word of God would fall apart like a hand in a glove, or something like that.

(As an aside, something DID die in the day Adam and Eve sinned... the animal(s) that died to provide God's covering for their sin, a fore-shadowing of Christ's death.)

Adam and Eve didn't die in the day they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because of God's mercy and grace. The only reason ANYBODY has been alive for any amount of time since that day has been a gift from God.

When God put the angel to guard the tree of life so that nobody could eat of it, it was because there is SOMETHING WORSE THAN DEATH... unregenerate immortality.

I am more inclined now than I have ever been before to believe that Jesus' death on the cross was to accomplish the resurrection of ALL mankind, every single one of the people who have died. I am not a universalist yet, because I'm still inclined to think individual people can decide that they don't want to participate in the kingdom of God, but I think EVERYONE who has ever lived is going to get to make that decision for their selves.

I no longer view death as being the worst thing that can happen to a person, the way I used to.

Love,

Steve

[Mark Sanguinetti]

We think alike Steve and we also know we are on a learning curve. We learn new things everyday as long as we study and ask God for answers. Speaking of universalists, here is a link to a new web site that I authored in the last 2 years.

Here is the first paragraph on the introductory home page.

Christian universalism is the belief of the desire and capabilities of Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ came into the world to save all of mankind and not just a small percentage of the population. He not only had and has the desire to save all people who have ever lived, but Jesus Christ has now the ability and will be given the means to save all people by God His Father not just now, but in the ages to come.

Here are some scriptures that I evaluate and consider. And I do approach this is a non-argumentative manner realizing that regarding the prophetic future, we know only in part.

1 Cor 15:20-28

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

NKJV

http://www.christian-universalism.info/

Edited March 20, 2012 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Jbarrax]

Verrrry interesting. I've been toying with this concept too for a couple of years now. Can't quite make up my mind about it because there are scriptures on both sides of the issue. I even attended a UU Church for a while and sought help from their ministers in putting it together from the Scriptures. That didn't work very well since most UU folks don't know the Bible very well (wonderful people though).

The main reason I see for adopting a Universalist view is my inability to accept the traditional belief that the Bible presents the hope of Christ's return as an event in a vague future. To my eyes there are too many verses that plainly indicate an Apostolic mindset anticipating a speedy return. If that mindset actually came from things Jesus taught and said, one has to ask why God would allow that. The most plausible answer imho is that all that messianic wrathspeak was a feint, to fool the Devil into slaying the Lamb of God so that the whole world could be legally wrested from his grasp.

Off topic I know, but I felt obliged to chime in with a qualified "amen". :-)

[Naten00]

I would say there is a difference between Jesus coming to save everyone and who actually accepts it... Jesus was very clear that very few find the road to life.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Naten00

[WordWolf]

I would say there is a difference between Jesus coming to save everyone and who actually accepts it... Jesus was very clear that very few find the road to life.

This isn't the thread for it, but if someone's going to make a serious claim for it

(I'm skeptical it can be done to my satisfaction, but anything's possible)

they'd need to address what I think are some clear verses in both the Gospels and Revelation

(2 places twi'ers are notably weak, and some ex-twi'ers are as well.)

I understand the point of the needle analogy but I can't completely agree. With the needles, you have an active role in taking the child to receive the treatments. With the idiom of permission, God doesn't actively do anything.

That's the crucial point. He doesn't do anything, He simply permits it.

(snip)

My point was that we're looking for God to fit into neat explanations we can understand,

and he's far more complex than we CAN understand.

A small child has a better chance of understanding why his parents "obviously" had him hurt

getting shots than we do getting God to fit in our little boxes so we can answer ALL

our questions.

[Twinky]

This has developed into an interesting discussion on another topic.

Maybe someone can lift out the previous few posts and start a new thread on Universalism.

That way, these interesting comments won't get missed by other posters.

Universalism's not a part of this thread, which pertains to the Idiom of Permission.

Thanks, Twinx